Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > Adam R. B. Jack wrote: <snip/> > > Cocoon didn't build 'cos (1) we'd not got enough folks caring about gump > > successes (2) we didn't build from repository (and cocoon has lots of > > dependencies, so it's chances of a build were unlikely. FWIIW: Communities > > (many), along with myself (looking at 'affected') and Stefan (just being the > > natural Gumpmeister) put in the time and effort in to picked candidate > > failures, fix them, and slowly edged up the Gump wave front to meet Cocoon. > > So, in a sense, this number resulted in Cocoon getting built. ;-) > > all right, it is clearly not your fault that cocoon was never built, but > this for sure didn't help, IMHO.
A tweet from the background ... The email reports that nag us on Cocoon and Forrest are very hard for me to follow. (Please don't stop the nags.) I do try to decipher them and even follow through to the website. However, i inevitably give up and wait. Thank heaven that Stefan Bodewig and Stephen McConnell et al sometimes send us a fix for our gump descriptor. These fixes are often obscure. So, please, it is not that we don't care. How to ease the confusion, i do not know. -- David Crossley --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
