Re: text display of ascii files not a good idea, posted by Stefan Ritt on Wed Sep 8 13:46:56 2004
|
> [...]
> > Probably it is fine to display only files ending in '.txt' per default.
> > In addition a file that has more than say 1000 lines should probably
|
Re: PostScript Files shown as text., posted by Stefan Ritt on Wed Sep 8 15:52:00 2004
|
> At some point, in the last week or so, I upgraded the debian-unstable
> version (r1459-1) of elog. Now, PostScript files (as attachments) are
> displayed (shown in ascii text, instead of just showing the link).
|
|
Re: text display of ascii files not a good idea, posted by Heiko Scheit on Wed Sep 8 23:35:01 2004
|
> > [...]
> > > Probably it is fine to display only files ending in '.txt' per default.
> > > In addition a file that has more than say 1000 lines should probably
|
|
Re: text display of ascii files not a good idea, posted by Stefan Ritt on Wed Sep 15 04:08:46 2004
|
> So a configurable size limit seems appropriate, from which on
> only 'Display attachment' is displayed. And/Or, for files
> exceeding this limit, the first N (new config option) lines could be displayed.
|
|
Re: too many <table> tags, posted by Stefan Ritt on Wed Sep 15 07:42:23 2004
|
> > > Couldn't one include the extra <table> tag only when there is really more than
> > > one attribute per line. All other lines could then be aligned properly.
|
Enhanced "eLog Version" Variable, posted by Steve Jones on Fri Sep 24 19:17:52 2004
|
Stefan, would it be ok to add the "minor" revision level to the VERSION
constant? I've been doing this after I download source just so I can keep
things straight, you keep cranking out versions ;->
|
|
Re: Enhanced "eLog Version" Variable, posted by Stefan Ritt on Fri Sep 24 22:37:01 2004
|
Sorry for that. The idea is that the -4 is the minor number between releases
(mainly for bug fixes and impatient users (;-) ). I accidently overwrote the
-4 version several times when testing a new RPM building scheme, but I promise
|
Re: Enhanced "eLog Version" Variable, posted by Steve Jones on Wed Oct 6 06:14:36 2004
|
No big deal - I looked at the code and you did a much more thorough job than I
would have done. Appreciate all of the hard work -- this product is masterful!
|