Am 25.11.2016 15:30 schrieb :
>
> On 24.11.2016 21:38, Sven Barth wrote:
>>
>> On 31.10.2016 14:58, bla...@blaise.ru wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like a commitment from at least one of the committers to work
closely with me during that period on resolving issues that prevent
merging.
> So what next? Blaise is still interested in? Am I alone on battle
> field? Is Scooter Software around? I am confused.
Yes, we're still around. Yes, we're still willing to throw some money
at anyone else who can help get this pushed in, whether that's Blaise,
Sven, or Maciej. I don't have
On 24.11.2016 21:38, Sven Barth wrote:
On 31.10.2016 14:58, bla...@blaise.ru wrote:
I would like a commitment from at least one of the committers to work closely
with me during that period on resolving issues that prevent merging. And by
that I mean to be ready to react to my
Am 25.11.2016 09:45 schrieb "Maciej Izak" :
>
>
> 2016-11-24 19:38 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth :
>>
>> mea culpa
>
>
> So what next? Blaise is still interested in? Am I alone on battle field?
Is Scooter Software around? I am confused.
Give them some time
Well, we're talking about two different things. In this interpretation,
NewPascal serves as some kind of FPC-experimental branch. Which is
nice,
and nothing to have against it.
But still, before merging anything to a master branch, there should be
a
way to review patches for obvious
Hi,
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Alfred wrote:
> > TL;DR: if this patch was accepted into NewPascal w/o comments or concerns,
> > then "ouch"...
>
> Thanks for your advice.
> This is exactly why NewPascal is here !
>
> Have an idea. Implement. Make public.
> perfect:=false;
> while (NOT perfect) Use;
2016-11-24 19:38 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth :
> mea culpa
So what next? Blaise is still interested in? Am I alone on battle field? Is
Scooter Software around? I am confused.
--
Best regards,
Maciej Izak
___
fpc-devel maillist