On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 12:53:39PM -0400, Patrick Lam wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Thomas Fletcher wrote:
>
> > We are waiting for someone to take a compelling first stab at
> > making these plugins a reality. Things that need to be considered
>
> It's unclear to me that plugins are a good idea to try to get in for 1.0.
Given that no one has even started on implementing them, I think we
should defininitely push them to post 1.0.
And, I would suggest making that a criteria for any new feature - If
you haven't started now, it won't go in 1.0. Period.
How does that sound?
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dyndns.org/decss
- Re: Linking against libjpeg ? Thomas Fletcher
- Re: Linking against libjpeg ? Hubert Figuiere
- Re: Linking against libjpeg ? Thomas Fletcher
- Re: Linking against libjpeg ? Paolo Molaro
- Re: gdk-pixbuf vs. ImageMagick Leonard Rosenthol
- Re: gdk-pixbuf vs. ImageMagick Thomas Fletcher
- Re: gdk-pixbuf vs. ImageMag... Leonard Rosenthol
- Re: gdk-pixbuf vs. ImageMagick Aaron Lehmann
- Re: Linking against libjpeg ? Hubert Figuiere
- Re: Linking against libjpeg ? Patrick Lam
- what do we want into 1.0? (was Re: L... Sam TH
- what do we want into 1.0? (was ... Joaquin Cuenca Abela
- Re: Linking against libjpeg ? Hubert Figuiere
- Re: Linking against libjpeg ? rms
- Re: Linking against libjpeg... Patrick Lam
- Re: Linking against libjpeg... Robert G. Werner
- Re: Linking against libjpeg... Joaquin Cuenca Abela
- Re: Linking against libjpeg... Hubert Figuiere
- Re: Linking against libjpeg... rms
- Re: Linking against libjpeg ? Aaron Lehmann
- Re: Linking against libjpeg ? Thomas Fletcher
PGP signature