--On Thursday, June 03, 2004 10:52 AM -0700 Jim Trocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
this is a matter of historical record which should be public. rather than post his patched version to the mailing list for everyone to have a gander at and do something with if they chose, he sent them only to me (afaik), and since then i've been implicated as the reason why those patches haven't been distributed to anyone else. i don't think that's the right way to make progress, so i'm posting the diff between what he sent to me and the closest release to it at the time, which is 0.99.2.
If you're looking to have an accurate historical record, you should at least post the long description I sent you of the patch. As I recall, I itemized the entire patch, breaking it down into about 20 different changes, and for EVERY LINE in the patch I documented which changes it was a part of. I spent a couple of hours doing that, so that you could pick and choose which portions of the patch you wanted to apply.
If you no longer have that information, I can dig it up. (In fact, I may have posted it to the list, but I can't recall right now. Time for some email archeology.)
By the way, Jim, I don't want you to feel like we're upset with you personally. But the problem is that last spring the issue of new mon releases came up, and we had several people interested in doing joint development of the system. But you spoke up and said you had some new versions for us to test, and you still wanted to be the primary maintainer. We all accepted that and trusted you to move the project forward. But it has become increasingly clear to most of us that you just don't have the time to do more then maintenance releases to Mon, and maybe not even that. Many of us are willing to volunteer our time to help Mon continue to evolve and become a better system. Please let us help you!
_______________________________________________ mon mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/mon
