From: <ste...@gm...> - 2007-10-13 10:34:24
|
I'm playing with 3.0 tonight for the first time in a while. I was using the Notes view and created a few notes. Nice, I like it! Then I switched to the Events view, and opened up the event I want. I moved to the Notes tab, but I cannot add any of the existing notes I just created. The only option it gives me is to create a brand new note. For example, on the Source tab, I have a little icon of a finger over a page, with the flyover help text of "Add an existing source". On the notes tab, I would expect there to be an icon called "Add an existing note". Is this intentional? I recall a discussion a while back about how the notes wont work the same way as events/people/places/repositories. Is this what it was about, or was there something else I missed? Thanks! St=E9phane |
From: <bm...@ca...> - 2007-10-13 12:38:34
|
Quoting St=E9phane Charette <ste...@gm...>: > I'm playing with 3.0 tonight for the first time in a while. > > I was using the Notes view and created a few notes. Nice, I like it! > > Then I switched to the Events view, and opened up the event I want. I > moved to the Notes tab, but I cannot add any of the existing notes I > just created. The only option it gives me is to create a brand new > note. indeed, notes are *not* shared. We had this discussion before. > For example, on the Source tab, I have a little icon of a finger over > a page, with the flyover help text of "Add an existing source". On > the notes tab, I would expect there to be an icon called "Add an > existing note". Is this intentional? Yes > I recall a discussion a while back about how the notes wont work the > same way as events/people/places/repositories. Is this what it was > about, or was there something else I missed? Indeed. So notes are still like in 2.2.x series, but now with markup, and you can organize them within a single object. They have been made primary objects because of: * variable sized note text would be better in a seperate database table (vi= z a viz table optimization) * we could make them shared should we want. I am against that however, so please convince me why it should be usefull. Benny ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
From: <ste...@gm...> - 2007-10-13 13:54:29
|
Thing is, last time this topic came up I was reading about it. Now I've actually loaded up 3.0 and used it. Since the view is called Notes, it needs to show all notes. Otherwise, I have no idea what the purpose of it would be. I have probably hundreds of notes in my database -- yet none show up in the notes tab. If the Notes are not to show existing notes, but some new-purpose notes that are not attached to people/events/places, then we need to rename it to something else. Users of GRAMPS v2.x are used to having notes. Now we'll confuse them by changing vocabulary on them. Or rather, introducing something different while we still have the old notes. What is the Notes tab used for if they cannot be attached to people/events/places? So now we have the concept of 2 different types of notes. Whether or not we agree with the previous paragraph I just wrote about renaming the new notes to something else, we still need some type of Notes view that will allow people to view all of their existing notes. And edit their notes. And merge notes. And see which object references a note. The same way we handle these things with other primary objects in Gramps. I strongly recommend that people try out 3.0 to see firsthand what this is about. It is hard to follow until you actually take the new interface out for a spin. Stephane On 10/13/07, bm...@ca... <bm...@ca...> wrote: > Quoting St=E9phane Charette <ste...@gm...>: > > > I'm playing with 3.0 tonight for the first time in a while. > > > > I was using the Notes view and created a few notes. Nice, I like it! > > > > Then I switched to the Events view, and opened up the event I want. I > > moved to the Notes tab, but I cannot add any of the existing notes I > > just created. The only option it gives me is to create a brand new > > note. > > indeed, notes are *not* shared. We had this discussion before. > > > For example, on the Source tab, I have a little icon of a finger over > > a page, with the flyover help text of "Add an existing source". On > > the notes tab, I would expect there to be an icon called "Add an > > existing note". Is this intentional? > > Yes > > > I recall a discussion a while back about how the notes wont work the > > same way as events/people/places/repositories. Is this what it was > > about, or was there something else I missed? > > Indeed. > > So notes are still like in 2.2.x series, but now with markup, and you can > organize them within a single object. > > They have been made primary objects because of: > * variable sized note text would be better in a seperate database table (= vi > z a > viz table optimization) > * we could make them shared should we want. I am against that however, > so please > convince me why it should be usefull. > > Benny > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > |
From: <bm...@ca...> - 2007-10-13 14:57:50
|
Quoting St=E9phane Charette <ste...@gm...>: > Thing is, last time this topic came up I was reading about it. Now > I've actually loaded up 3.0 and used it. > > Since the view is called Notes, it needs to show all notes. > Otherwise, I have no idea what the purpose of it would be. I have > probably hundreds of notes in my database -- yet none show up in the > notes tab. indeed, you also have no view for your associations, attributes, ... > > If the Notes are not to show existing notes, but some new-purpose > notes that are not attached to people/events/places, then we need to > rename it to something else. Users of GRAMPS v2.x are used to having > notes. Now we'll confuse them by changing vocabulary on them. Or > rather, introducing something different while we still have the old > notes. What is the Notes tab used for if they cannot be attached to > people/events/places? ?? Notes tab is for the notes. Note view is for unconnected notes. You may find it strange, but only this week we had a question 'why can't I make my gener= al TODO list in GRAMPS?' That is a first reason for the note view. A second reason is that Don and others are against automatic delete of note= s when parent object is deleted. Hence these newly formed unattached notes need a view where you can see them. A third is to keep flat text files needed in reports. Normal users only kno= w word as a text editing tool, which is not what we want to parse when reading in data for reports (even if little used today). > So now we have the concept of 2 different types of notes. Whether or > not we agree with the previous paragraph I just wrote about renaming > the new notes to something else, we still need some type of Notes view > that will allow people to view all of their existing notes. And edit > their notes. And merge notes. And see which object references a > note. The same way we handle these things with other primary objects > in Gramps. -/view all of their existing notes : no. We should write a report for that = if users have some need for it. -/And edit their notes: notes only have meaning in relation to their parent object, so you edit that -/And merge notes: I fail to see the use, but one could make a merge function in the note tab. I would assume copy paste to be quite sufficient -/nd see which object references a note: no, you arrive at the note from an object, not the other way around I hate to repeat it, but there is a logic here, we can only prevent misuse = of notes by not allowing shared notes. That is, a shared note is text in a source, and you have a source view, and you can make a merge on the source view, and you can edit there. Shared notes is a can of worms we would open, and would have to start to support everywhere, while we already have the object source to do just that. A note is in essence a piece of flat text, with a tag, a marker and private= or not. It is like a piece of paper, you need the book it is part from to give= it meaning, in itself, it is just text. > I strongly recommend that people try out 3.0 to see firsthand what > this is about. It is hard to follow until you actually take the new > interface out for a spin. Benny ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
From: <bm...@ca...> - 2007-10-13 16:05:13
|
Ok, a suggestion in stead of remakrs now :-) We have made notes primary objects, but that does not mean the GUI has to reflect that everywhere. If notes are not shared, I suggest the following improvements: 1/notes are deleted when parent object is deleted. That works today in 2.2.x, so why change for 3.0. 2/the noteview is not visible when starting up gramps. For unattached notes, the user must go to the View Menu, and select 'View General Notes' After that, = the present noteview becomes visible. This should make it clear that the note v= iew is not part of the general genealogical objects visible in the interface normally. 3/All objects have already a filter to search into their notes (see note la= bel in filter sidebar on eg person, source). For the source object we might consider adding a column in source view with the first line of the first no= te attached to it 4/Just like a person editor has a preview of the first media in the gallery tab, the source editor is given a preview of the first note in the note tab. Thi= s would reduce mouse tabs when one just wants to consult data of a source as text. Feel free to suggest other ways to make the noteview disappear, and do give your opinion. Benny Quoting St=E9phane Charette <ste...@gm...>: > Thing is, last time this topic came up I was reading about it. Now > I've actually loaded up 3.0 and used it. > > Since the view is called Notes, it needs to show all notes. > Otherwise, I have no idea what the purpose of it would be. I have > probably hundreds of notes in my database -- yet none show up in the > notes tab. > > If the Notes are not to show existing notes, but some new-purpose > notes that are not attached to people/events/places, then we need to > rename it to something else. Users of GRAMPS v2.x are used to having > notes. Now we'll confuse them by changing vocabulary on them. Or > rather, introducing something different while we still have the old > notes. What is the Notes tab used for if they cannot be attached to > people/events/places? > > So now we have the concept of 2 different types of notes. Whether or > not we agree with the previous paragraph I just wrote about renaming > the new notes to something else, we still need some type of Notes view > that will allow people to view all of their existing notes. And edit > their notes. And merge notes. And see which object references a > note. The same way we handle these things with other primary objects > in Gramps. > > I strongly recommend that people try out 3.0 to see firsthand what > this is about. It is hard to follow until you actually take the new > interface out for a spin. > > Stephane > > > On 10/13/07, bm...@ca... <bm...@ca...> wrote: >> Quoting St=E9phane Charette <ste...@gm...>: >> >> > I'm playing with 3.0 tonight for the first time in a while. >> > >> > I was using the Notes view and created a few notes. Nice, I like it! >> > >> > Then I switched to the Events view, and opened up the event I want. I >> > moved to the Notes tab, but I cannot add any of the existing notes I >> > just created. The only option it gives me is to create a brand new >> > note. >> >> indeed, notes are *not* shared. We had this discussion before. >> >> > For example, on the Source tab, I have a little icon of a finger over >> > a page, with the flyover help text of "Add an existing source". On >> > the notes tab, I would expect there to be an icon called "Add an >> > existing note". Is this intentional? >> >> Yes >> >> > I recall a discussion a while back about how the notes wont work the >> > same way as events/people/places/repositories. Is this what it was >> > about, or was there something else I missed? >> >> Indeed. >> >> So notes are still like in 2.2.x series, but now with markup, and you ca= n >> organize them within a single object. >> >> They have been made primary objects because of: >> * variable sized note text would be better in a seperate database table = (vi >> z a >> viz table optimization) >> * we could make them shared should we want. I am against that however, >> so please >> convince me why it should be usefull. >> >> Benny >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-devel mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
From: <ste...@gm...> - 2007-10-13 18:58:09
|
> 1/notes are deleted when parent object is deleted. That works today in > 2.2.x, so > why change for 3.0. When I delete a person, does all event related to that person also get deleted? For examle, if I have a census event attached to all members of a family, if I delete one of the members of that family, the census does not get deleted, right? But if I have an event that is only attached to a single person, say a birth event, then does the event get deleted when the person is deleted? Regardless, we could easily say that notes don't get deleted. And then have a prebuilt filter called "unattached notes" that people can use to clean up their notes. (Note I already have filters I wrote and commited in trunk for finding objects with zero references.) > 2/the noteview is not visible when starting up gramps. For unattached > notes, the > user must go to the View Menu, and select 'View General Notes' After that= , > the > present noteview becomes visible. This should make it clear that the note= v > iew > is not part of the general genealogical objects visible in the interface > normally. This is still a problem. You have something called "Notes", but it doesn't show you the notes in your database. It shows you something other than notes. People have many notes in their database. It will be confusing when they say: "hey, look, 3.0.0 now has a notes viewer", but none of their notes show up. If we now have a "TODO LIST" viewer, then we need to call it something different than notes. Which still brings me back to my original e-mail: we need an actual "Notes" view tab, now that notes are primary objects in the database. And I still haven't heard an argument I agree with as to why I'm not allowed to share my notes between people, or between events, or between places, the way it would seem is the logical way to do it. I understand you might not use it this way, but obviously there are plenty of us who do use it this way. Another great example from my own database: there are 2 side-by-side plots of land that have belonged to my family for many generations. Until the late 1940s, those plots of land were 1 plot of land. I have stories that have been passed down from one generation to the next concerning how the land was used. At the moment, I have the exact same "note" in both Place objects. I would like to have 1 note shared between both of those. I know you will describe some sort of different system where I create a source instead, but to users like myself, this isn't a source! it is simply a note, with information, that I want to share. > 3/All objects have already a filter to search into their notes (see note = la > bel > in filter sidebar on eg person, source). For the source object we might > consider adding a column in source view with the first line of the first = no > te > attached to it Yes, I know you recommend people use source objects to store notes, but that isn't how everyone uses the system. Various people have mentionned this now, and I didn't exactly understand until last night. The "Notes" idea works well for people because it is natural to think that little bits of paper attached to objects is where you can store information. In my database, I have maybe 20 sources. That's it. But I have hundreds, if not thousands, of notes. I don't want all of those converted to sources. I have a feeling that the general concept of a source is what Gramps now calls repositories, which didn't use to exist in Gramps, and which I must admit I don't use. And since this topic has been brought up before, I'm not the only one. > 4/Just like a person editor has a preview of the first media in the > gallery tab, > the source editor is given a preview of the first note in the note tab. T= hi > s > would reduce mouse tabs when one just wants to consult data of a source a= s > text. > > Feel free to suggest other ways to make the noteview disappear, and do > give your > opinion. I don't want noteview to disapear. I would like a noteview that shows me the notes as primary objects, the same way we work with events, families, sources, and places. St=E9phane |
From: Don A. <do...@gr...> - 2007-10-13 19:24:53
|
Sorry, sent this from the wrong account, so it got bounced by the list. Don On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 13:20 -0600, Don Allingham wrote: > Deleting a person does not delete the event, even if no object is > referencing it. This was a conscious decision - never unexpectedly > delete information without the explicit permission of the user. >=20 > Realistically, this could be handled better. One way would be to check > to see if the reference count on the event is zero when a person/family > is deleted, and prompt the user for permission to delete the object. > This will probably tend to get a bit annoying. >=20 > Another way would be to mark unreferenced events in the Event View, > possibly by putting the data in italics. >=20 > Don >=20 >=20 > On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 11:58 -0700, St=C3=A9phane Charette wrote: > > > 1/notes are deleted when parent object is deleted. That works today i= n > > > 2.2.x, so > > > why change for 3.0. > >=20 > > When I delete a person, does all event related to that person also get > > deleted? For examle, if I have a census event attached to all members > > of a family, if I delete one of the members of that family, the census > > does not get deleted, right? > >=20 > > But if I have an event that is only attached to a single person, say a > > birth event, then does the event get deleted when the person is > > deleted? > >=20 > > Regardless, we could easily say that notes don't get deleted. And > > then have a prebuilt filter called "unattached notes" that people can > > use to clean up their notes. (Note I already have filters I wrote and > > commited in trunk for finding objects with zero references.) > >=20 > > > 2/the noteview is not visible when starting up gramps. For unattached > > > notes, the > > > user must go to the View Menu, and select 'View General Notes' After = that, > > > the > > > present noteview becomes visible. This should make it clear that the = note v > > > iew > > > is not part of the general genealogical objects visible in the interf= ace > > > normally. > >=20 > > This is still a problem. You have something called "Notes", but it > > doesn't show you the notes in your database. It shows you something > > other than notes. People have many notes in their database. It will > > be confusing when they say: "hey, look, 3.0.0 now has a notes > > viewer", but none of their notes show up. If we now have a "TODO > > LIST" viewer, then we need to call it something different than notes. > >=20 > > Which still brings me back to my original e-mail: we need an actual > > "Notes" view tab, now that notes are primary objects in the database. > >=20 > > And I still haven't heard an argument I agree with as to why I'm not > > allowed to share my notes between people, or between events, or > > between places, the way it would seem is the logical way to do it. I > > understand you might not use it this way, but obviously there are > > plenty of us who do use it this way. > >=20 > > Another great example from my own database: there are 2 side-by-side > > plots of land that have belonged to my family for many generations. > > Until the late 1940s, those plots of land were 1 plot of land. I have > > stories that have been passed down from one generation to the next > > concerning how the land was used. At the moment, I have the exact > > same "note" in both Place objects. I would like to have 1 note shared > > between both of those. I know you will describe some sort of > > different system where I create a source instead, but to users like > > myself, this isn't a source! it is simply a note, with information, > > that I want to share. > >=20 > > > 3/All objects have already a filter to search into their notes (see n= ote la > > > bel > > > in filter sidebar on eg person, source). For the source object we mig= ht > > > consider adding a column in source view with the first line of the fi= rst no > > > te > > > attached to it > >=20 > > Yes, I know you recommend people use source objects to store notes, > > but that isn't how everyone uses the system. Various people have > > mentionned this now, and I didn't exactly understand until last night. > > The "Notes" idea works well for people because it is natural to think > > that little bits of paper attached to objects is where you can store > > information. In my database, I have maybe 20 sources. That's it. > > But I have hundreds, if not thousands, of notes. I don't want all of > > those converted to sources. I have a feeling that the general concept > > of a source is what Gramps now calls repositories, which didn't use to > > exist in Gramps, and which I must admit I don't use. And since this > > topic has been brought up before, I'm not the only one. > >=20 > > > 4/Just like a person editor has a preview of the first media in the > > > gallery tab, > > > the source editor is given a preview of the first note in the note ta= b. Thi > > > s > > > would reduce mouse tabs when one just wants to consult data of a sour= ce as > > > text. > > > > > > Feel free to suggest other ways to make the noteview disappear, and d= o > > > give your > > > opinion. > >=20 > > I don't want noteview to disapear. I would like a noteview that shows > > me the notes as primary objects, the same way we work with events, > > families, sources, and places. > >=20 > > St=C3=A9phane > >=20 > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > Gramps-devel mailing list > > Gra...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel |
From: <bm...@ca...> - 2007-10-13 20:04:49
|
Ok, let's vote shall we? Add a poll to the devel page of wiki and send word to devel list. And if yes, find somebody to implement it ;-) (GEDCOM being the issue I wou= ld think, and reports i.e how to do doubles, check/repair tool, ...) First let us be clear about the meaning: A repository is a building where you store sources, it is not the general concept of a source. A source is an information source (tombstone, diary, registry, census). Some genealogy applications allow subsources (so sources with much information like registries are more manageable), Gramps does not have this, but it is something I would like to add in the future (it would be a collection of the notes of the source). Then you have notes which are pieces of text as used elsewhere. We have decided they do _not_ have a title, or an author, and they also have no reference information. We do not want to add to the functionality of notes, so we don't want to go= to system where users ask us to add extra fields to notes, or to the case of a source reference (in the code, sourcebase does not exist, so sources are attached to objects like events, without a reference, so you cannot have a note public in one object, and private in the other, ...). If you want notes to be more, or see issues in the future, speak up now. Note that users will do the following: You have census source, and use a note for every line in the census. The census source would have hundreds of entries, making it uneasy to find the correct line corresponding to a person, even if the sourceref is used to indicate this. Adding the shared note to the person would eliminate this, so the note with the line of the census is shared with the person himself. However, new users might just skip the creation of a source (adding things like title, author in the note text), and reports would start to print out the s= ame note double in eg detailed report if connected to both.. By avoiding shared notes, I want to avoid the above confusion between note = and source. Benny Quoting St=E9phane Charette <ste...@gm...>: >> 1/notes are deleted when parent object is deleted. That works today in >> 2.2.x, so >> why change for 3.0. > > When I delete a person, does all event related to that person also get > deleted? For examle, if I have a census event attached to all members > of a family, if I delete one of the members of that family, the census > does not get deleted, right? > > But if I have an event that is only attached to a single person, say a > birth event, then does the event get deleted when the person is > deleted? > > Regardless, we could easily say that notes don't get deleted. And > then have a prebuilt filter called "unattached notes" that people can > use to clean up their notes. (Note I already have filters I wrote and > commited in trunk for finding objects with zero references.) > >> 2/the noteview is not visible when starting up gramps. For unattached >> notes, the >> user must go to the View Menu, and select 'View General Notes' After tha= t, >> the >> present noteview becomes visible. This should make it clear that the not= e v >> iew >> is not part of the general genealogical objects visible in the interface >> normally. > > This is still a problem. You have something called "Notes", but it > doesn't show you the notes in your database. It shows you something > other than notes. People have many notes in their database. It will > be confusing when they say: "hey, look, 3.0.0 now has a notes > viewer", but none of their notes show up. If we now have a "TODO > LIST" viewer, then we need to call it something different than notes. > > Which still brings me back to my original e-mail: we need an actual > "Notes" view tab, now that notes are primary objects in the database. > > And I still haven't heard an argument I agree with as to why I'm not > allowed to share my notes between people, or between events, or > between places, the way it would seem is the logical way to do it. I > understand you might not use it this way, but obviously there are > plenty of us who do use it this way. > > Another great example from my own database: there are 2 side-by-side > plots of land that have belonged to my family for many generations. > Until the late 1940s, those plots of land were 1 plot of land. I have > stories that have been passed down from one generation to the next > concerning how the land was used. At the moment, I have the exact > same "note" in both Place objects. I would like to have 1 note shared > between both of those. I know you will describe some sort of > different system where I create a source instead, but to users like > myself, this isn't a source! it is simply a note, with information, > that I want to share. > >> 3/All objects have already a filter to search into their notes (see note= la >> bel >> in filter sidebar on eg person, source). For the source object we might >> consider adding a column in source view with the first line of the first= no >> te >> attached to it > > Yes, I know you recommend people use source objects to store notes, > but that isn't how everyone uses the system. Various people have > mentionned this now, and I didn't exactly understand until last night. > The "Notes" idea works well for people because it is natural to think > that little bits of paper attached to objects is where you can store > information. In my database, I have maybe 20 sources. That's it. > But I have hundreds, if not thousands, of notes. I don't want all of > those converted to sources. I have a feeling that the general concept > of a source is what Gramps now calls repositories, which didn't use to > exist in Gramps, and which I must admit I don't use. And since this > topic has been brought up before, I'm not the only one. > >> 4/Just like a person editor has a preview of the first media in the >> gallery tab, >> the source editor is given a preview of the first note in the note tab. = Thi >> s >> would reduce mouse tabs when one just wants to consult data of a source = as >> text. >> >> Feel free to suggest other ways to make the noteview disappear, and do >> give your >> opinion. > > I don't want noteview to disapear. I would like a noteview that shows > me the notes as primary objects, the same way we work with events, > families, sources, and places. > > St=E9phane > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
From: <ste...@gm...> - 2007-10-13 20:59:28
|
> let's vote shall we? Add a poll to the devel page of wiki and send word > to devel > list. Hum...ok, I'll try to figure out how to do this. I'll send an e-mail to the devel and users list when the poll is ready. > And if yes, find somebody to implement it ;-) I will do it if no-one else is available. I figured out enough Python earlier this year to write the FamilyLines plugin. ;-) >(GEDCOM being the issue I wou > ld > think, and reports i.e how to do doubles, check/repair tool, ...) Gramps is not Gedcom. Gedcom is a lossy format for us. If that means that shared notes are output as seperate non-shared notes when exporting to Gedcom, I would think that would be acceptable for everyone. If anything, it is exactly what we have now, so we certainly haven't gone backwards. St=E9phane |
From: <bm...@ca...> - 2007-10-13 22:13:37
|
Quoting St=E9phane Charette <ste...@gm...>: >> (GEDCOM being the issue I wou >> ld >> think, and reports i.e how to do doubles, check/repair tool, ...) > > Gramps is not Gedcom. Gedcom is a lossy format for us. If that means > that shared notes are output as seperate non-shared notes when > exporting to Gedcom, I would think that would be acceptable for > everyone. If anything, it is exactly what we have now, so we > certainly haven't gone backwards. GEDCOM allows shared notes: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~pmcbride/gedcom/55gcch2.htm#NOTE_STRUCTURE It would be kind of stupid to have shared notes, but not be able to import GEDCOM shared notes, or export them. Benny ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
From: <ste...@gm...> - 2007-10-13 23:58:07
|
On 10/13/07, St=E9phane Charette <ste...@gm...> wrote: > > let's vote shall we? Add a poll to the devel page of wiki and send word > > to devel > > list. > > Hum...ok, I'll try to figure out how to do this. I'll send an e-mail > to the devel and users list when the poll is ready. I need permission to edit the poll page (http://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=3DPoll) to create a new poll. Thanks! St=E9phane |
From: Alex R. <sh...@gr...> - 2007-10-14 00:09:41
|
St=C3=A9phane, On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 16:58 -0700, St=C3=A9phane Charette wrote: > On 10/13/07, St=C3=A9phane Charette <ste...@gm...> wrote: > > > let's vote shall we? Add a poll to the devel page of wiki and send wo= rd > > > to devel > > > list. > > > > Hum...ok, I'll try to figure out how to do this. I'll send an e-mail > > to the devel and users list when the poll is ready. >=20 > I need permission to edit the poll page > (http://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=3DPoll) to create a > new poll. Done. I think you should log out and then log in. Alex --=20 Alexander Roitman http://gramps-project.org |