On 10/09/10 20:50, Nathan Kinsinger wrote: > Sorry for not being more communicative about my progress. I'll be > pushing out another update with my recent changes this weekend. I'll try to rebase my changes on this. Is this on your 'experimental'-branch (which is really stable for me btw)?
> This particular fix was already included in my fork previously and > several of the fixes mentioned in the last few messages will be fixed > in this next one. For what's it's worth I don't think Dave's auto > refresh branch is quite ready yet. No, we don't have to rush that feature. About your branch: I checked Lighthouse last night and noticed that a lot of open bugs are either resolved in your branch or have become obsolete for various reasons. Same for feature request. Releasing this would cut the current number of issues by at least half. > I suspect if we came up with a release candidate that he would > probably release it. Yeah, that would be optimal. However, the release candidate should not hang around for long. Danger of stalling again. > If he does agree to hand it over to someone else I'm pretty sure it's > possible to change over the code signing key, it would just require > one last release signed by him. However he has mentioned that he > wanted to keep control of the sparkle feed. Yeah, one could use a new keypair or ask Pieter for the old one. If Pieter kept his old one he would always be able to restart another GitX-branch with autoupdate for 0.7 users, whatever that might be worth ;) Volunteers for any of the tasks? Ideas? Greetings, Jojo -- Johannes Gilger <[email protected]> http://heipei.net GPG-Key: 0xD47A7FFC GPG-Fingerprint: 5441 D425 6D4A BD33 B580 618C 3CDC C4D0 D47A 7FFC
