Re: How do I get the so called alpha version...

[Scott Penrose]

On 27/06/2005, at 23:53, Steffen Schwigon wrote:

Tom Schindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Well I'm not sure we should go on discussing here the issues with TomKit which is until now not the offical successor of AxKit or moreover AxKit2

and maybe will never be. Maybe I should get up a mailling list

the other guys hanging around here?

discussing TomKit or what ever name it will get. What's the opinion of

Just my opinion as a lurker: I'm glad to see any progress in .*Kit. I
wouldn't divide the new TomKit experimental way from AxKit. AxKit
historically suffers from unbundled efforts.

Effort should go into getting more feedback for your work. For me it
seems a simple "OK, go for it" from the core developers with cvs
commit rights and a branch for your work would be the most valuable
thing at this moment. With some rules to keep all this compliant to
the Apache.org rules, I can't think of a bad thing that could happen
to AxKit with your experiments.

It seems there are some people out there with interests in XML with
Apache2. Talking at the same place where the XML+Apache1 experienced
people talk, might be a way to get more spin.

Hi Steffen,



Scott
--
* - *  http://www.osdc.com.au - Open Source Developers Conference * - *
Scott Penrose
VP in charge of Pancakes
http://linux.dd.com.au/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Please do not send me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

Microsoft is not the answer. It's the question. And the answer is no.

I just wanted to add my support to all of the above there. To separate TomKit or any efforts in this to a separate list or separate system would make it even harder to get out an AxKit2 of some description and I for one would be happier if it stays together. Dismaimer: If you receive this email in error - please eat it immediately to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands.

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part