2010/6/14 Ray Rashif <[email protected]>: Hi,
>>> Since the one following the naming convention is unmaintained, I would >>> suggest adopting it with the contents of the other one. But I have no >>> problem with deleting it, since it meets most of the criteria for >>> removal. >> >> Sounds sensible - I'm happy to adopt the unmaintained one, but I notice that >> Bram Schoenmakers is maintaining the other version so should have first >> refusal. > > Yes, it would be up to Bram. He could either: > > 1) keep on maintaining current package > 2) disown current package and adopt the orphan > 3) disown current package and let someone else (you) adopt the orphan Is it that important, the naming convention? Still, I have no problem with taking option 2. Downside is that the current package loses its votes. Not that I attach much value to that, but maybe someone else cares. :) Kind regards, -- Bram Schoenmakers What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind. (Punch, 1855)
