TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-01 > 1042249585


From: "Stuart Armstrong" <>
Subject: [TMG] non-stick workaround
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:46:25 -0700
References: <3926.68.32.52.232.1041550137.squirrel@mail.whollygenes.com><11.6289a21.2b461363@aol.com><200301021521540580.00428662@mailhub.aros.net><3E14C539.1C66C2B5@infoave.net><3926.68.32.52.232.1041550137.squirrel@mail.whollygenes.com><5.1.0.14.2.20030103002031.0bafa860@mail.whollygenes.com><200301060844110760.0406336D@mailhub.aros.net><200301092250090120.0118F1A1@mailhub.aros.net><5.1.1.6.2.20030110212309.025789f0@mail.internode.on.net>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20030110212309.025789f0@mail.internode.on.net>


> If you double-click on one of the Witnesses in a tag entry screen to look
>at the sentence -- and you don't make any changes -- and then click OK -- it
>will revert back to the default sentence!

... so I ask myself, "Self, how can I get around this problem?"
With a little experimenting I've found that the work around is:

If you look at a witness in the tag entry screen and you don't want to make any changes to it -- hit CANCEL instead of OK. The sentence will then remain as it is, and won't revert to the default.

-------------------------------------

>>Could one of the beta testers report it please?
>
>Done !

Thanks !

liaizon
One of the most frustrating things is to discover a problem and wonder if the developers will ever know about it. I know at times they get so busy I think they must just put on the blinders and ignore everything for awhile, and I don't blame them. What we need is an officially recognized unofficial liaizon(s) on the list, who could filter the myriad difficulties, decide the ones that are really problems (most have to do with just learning the program) and report them to the developers, and then -- and this is important -- report back to the list that those problems (and feature requests) have been officially logged.
The liaizon(s) would have a certain amount of unofficial authority to make some judgment calls, meaning that first we have to convince the liaison that our particular issue is significant. This could save TMG developers some work by not having to consider every single request. And I'd feel better knowing that TMG pays attention to the said officially recognized unofficial liaizon(s). It would probably be one of the beta testers, but it wouldn't have to be (beta testers aren't allowed to reveal their identities). It's asking a lot of a volunteer, and it's asking TMG to pay particular attention to the liaizon(s) ... any thoughts ?


Stuart Armstrong
mail to:
web page: http://cgi.aros.net/~stuarta

This thread: