On 4 December 2011 18:56, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Well actually, the idea is that "Calligra" is the "project", while "Calligra
> Suite" is the name of the suite of applications. But we have never really
> formalized that, nor wrote specified specific guide lines. And we should.
Yes,
On 4 December 2011 17:27, Gajendra Agrawal wrote:
> Hello,
> I want to contribute in developing Logo and Stencils part of the project.
> I'm looking for contact info of graphic designers who can guide me. Can
> anyone give me some more details.
> I'm not sure if this mailing list is right place to
On Sunday 04 December 2011 17:27:00 Gajendra Agrawal wrote:
> Hello,
> I want to contribute in developing Logo and Stencils part of the project.
> I'm looking for contact info of graphic designers who can guide me. Can
> anyone give me some more details.
> I'm not sure if this mailing list is right
Heh I was about to reply exactly the same
On Sunday 04 December 2011 18:56:03 Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Well actually, the idea is that "Calligra" is the "project", while
> "Calligra Suite" is the name of the suite of applications. But we have
> never really formalized that, nor wrote
Hi,
Well actually, the idea is that "Calligra" is the "project", while "Calligra
Suite" is the name of the suite of applications. But we have never really
formalized that, nor wrote specified specific guide lines. And we should.
On Sunday 04 December 2011, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> On 4 Decembe
Hello,
I want to contribute in developing Logo and Stencils part of the project.
I'm looking for contact info of graphic designers who can guide me. Can
anyone give me some more details.
I'm not sure if this mailing list is right place to ask this or not.
Thanks,
Gajendra
>
_
On 4 December 2011 16:22, Markus Slopianka wrote:
> Hey there.
> The website currently has contradictory statements:
> Right on the homepage it says "Calligra Suite" at the top but below that
> "Calligra 2.4".
> The project was announced as Calligra Suite with capital C:
> http://www.calligra.org
Hey there.
The website currently has contradictory statements:
Right on the homepage it says "Calligra Suite" at the top but below that
"Calligra 2.4".
The project was announced as Calligra Suite with capital C:
http://www.calligra.org/news/announcements/stable/calligra-suite-goes-active/
Later th
On Sunday 04 December 2011, Adam Pigg wrote:
> in that case, surely we cant make the next release an RC if there are
> blockers ;)
Exactly, that is why I am suggesting a beta 5 ;) And hope for RC in early
January.
--
Cyrille Berger Skott
___
calligra-d
-- Forwarded message --
From: Adam Pigg
Date: Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: 2.4 Beta 5
To: Cyrille Berger Skott
in that case, surely we cant make the next release an RC if there are
blockers ;)
2011/12/4 Cyrille Berger Skott
> On Sunday 04 December 2011, Adam Pig
And here is a mockup for the official website:
http://cyrille.diwi.org/tmp/calligra/website-logo-mockup.png
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> Hello,
> After many improvements and thanks to community participation the
> Logos page [1] is now published as official.
> You can f
On Sunday 04 December 2011, Adam Pigg wrote:
> are all the release-blocker bugs in words fixed yet?
According to http://quality.calligra-suite.org/, we still have 11 release
blockers, many of those coming from words and a sharply raising number of test
failures.
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 10:18 A
are all the release-blocker bugs in words fixed yet?
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Cyrille Berger Skott
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If there are no objections, here is the Beta 5 planning:
>
> Friday 9th -> tag
> Wednesday 14th -> release
>
> Next release slot (hopefully for a RC :) ):
>
> Friday 6th Jan
Hi,
If there are no objections, here is the Beta 5 planning:
Friday 9th -> tag
Wednesday 14th -> release
Next release slot (hopefully for a RC :) ):
Friday 6th January -> tag
Wednesday 11th January -> Release
--
Cyrille Berger Skott
___
calligra-d
On Saturday 03 December 2011, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> "Not supporting Qt5" is obviously suicidal, I did not propose to even
> delay working on having the code build with it.
> What I said that for cases where no important features new in Qt 5 are
> used, there is no need to drop support for Qt 4
On Friday 02 December 2011, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > That said, it is a private
> > library, but I don't think cmake has a way to prevent installation of .so
> > symlinks.
>
> Turns out there is, using cmake's NAMELINK_SKIP magic:
>
> install(TARGETS foo ${INSTALL_TARGE
16 matches
Mail list logo
