Hi,
Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
it definitely refutes the assertion that patches are not accepted
Sure. It’s the presentation that’s at fault. There’s an internal feeling that
GNUstep is doing stuff and welcomes external contribution, and an external
presentation of a stale bug database that isn’t linked to the source code
Looking at your patches, I see your point.
They are almost all gsweb and gdl2.
Yes, they are not part of "core" (read below). I wonder if somebody
maintains those parts and if those person are active on the mailing list
at all.
Similarly, problems with gsweb ought not to relfect upon the main GNUstep
project, but apparently they do.
That's why bugs have a "category".
That's why we have a "core" and several other apps and libraries.
(and I wonder how many people find the source mirror on github and think there
hasn’t been a commit in over three months, too).
I agree ... mirroring to github seems to have been a mistake. I'm pretty sure
Greg wrote warnings with it to say it was a reads-only mirror, but warnings are
not sufficient as people don't read/notice them.
Well, an added problem is that the mirror service is not working.. Greg? :)
I'd prefer to stay on SVN, however I think bringing back SVN from GNA to
Savannah would be a good idea.
Riccardo
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
