On Saturday 08 August 2009 16:04:43 you wrote: > On 08/09/2009 06:10 AM, Raymond Martin wrote: > > On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:49:08 Patrick Shirkey wrote: > >> On 08/09/2009 05:44 AM, drew Roberts wrote: > >>> On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick Shirkey wrote: > >>>> Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide > >>>> that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required > >>>> for making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually > >>>> forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended > >>>> result of your efforts? > >>> > >>> Perhaps his stated intention was to fork but his point is that at this > >>> point at least, no fork exists? Perhaps at this point, all that exists > >>> is the original binary and a decompiled version of the source? (Along > >>> with new text documents? Guessing here from the threads, not from > >>> checking either of the projects.) > >> > >> So this is a pre fork or a split or a bend but not an outright fork? > >> > >> IMO, it's so close to a fork as to be almost negligible. > >> > >> It's all the ground work in place but none of the follow through. > >> > >> It's like a "psyche" intended to frighten the recipient without actually > >> doing anything specific? > > > > Yeah, the ground shakes and you get all frightened, but not much happens, > > yet! > > > > The Impro-Visor code is out and on SF, so it worked, didn't it. > > If that was your intention then yes. > > So now you are the official watchdog of the improvisor code? If they > step out of line again you will be right there to get them back on track > even if you have to force the issue with your cape and a trusty spork at > your side? >
I also have a little hickory stick for application as needed. Whip it good, dana nana nah! Raymond _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
