Hey Christian, On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 01:16 +0200, Rui Tiago Cação Matos wrote: > Hi Christian, > > On 10 October 2012 01:10, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com> wrote: > > That's a fine goal and all, but I must ask why people haven't sent us these > > patches and worked around our repository? We're not dead, just the tool's > > been working fine for our needs and we haven't seen any activity or support > > around it. > > > > It would have been much appreciated to be contacted before assuming > > maintainership of the project. We weren't intending to relinquish that just > > yet, and would like to discuss it with people before that were to happen.
I've had a gtkparasite fork going with GTK+ 3.0 support for a year: https://github.com/hadess/gtkparasite/commit/770db8faacde1aba9eaf3e45da6e39e27b565859 And the requests to get GTK+ 3.0 support committed have fallen on deaf ears: http://code.google.com/p/gtkparasite/issues/detail?id=18 So the patches have been sent, just that they've been ignored. > Oh, I'm not claiming maintainership on it at all. But you're right > that I should have contacted you first about this, my apologies. > > It's just that people have been doing gtkparasite forks all over the > internet and today I decided to finally push all the fixes I knew to a > place where a lot of interested parties can share the maintenance > burden. > > If you're not happy on having it in git.gnome.org we can take it back > down I guess. Or we can rename it and carry on using a single shared git repo so we don't block on a single person for maintenance. Cheers _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
