Hi, all. On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 01:43:04 +0100, GSR - FR wrote: > I disagree about full branch needed for tabs.
Yet, I'm not sure for the (non-) necessity of the branch after reading comments by Fernando and you, but we can have a branch anytime when desired. So OK, we don't create a new branch now. Let me remind you that a branch allows us to share codes, though there're other ways, like wiki 'scripts' page. (I forgot to say this in the last mail ;) > I have been collecting notes about what tabs need and have some ideas > of how could they be implemented. I guess I will have to jump into the > fire and (re)code them, or at least try and see if the ideas are > wrong. Help would be welcome, of course. I will post the notes soon. Thank you for revealing your plan. Probably like others, I'm looking forward to it. Fernando's observation on group is deep, but also diffcult to draw the correct bluprint. Maybe we can think better after having read your notes as a milestone. If I was abrupt in the procedure of branch, sorry. I confused what's necessary and desirable. We should begin with the necessary, keeping the desirable in the sight. > The [current code] has some nice things like being mostly stand > alone, and if we do not try to go beyond just a "binder window", it > can be a base or inspiration. This is a good observation after re-reading; because we can't defer the release of 1.5 infinitely, we have to balance the achievement and the goal a couple of months later, using the criterion similar to the above quote. On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:01:04 -0400, Rodrigo Amestica wrote: > I think that my help would come only by following up on discussions > and proposals and commenting on them. I find tabs really useful, > provided they behave and provide some basic functionality that I > have tried locally in my copy of them. > > thanks for your consideration. Thank you too for your reply. We already gained much from you. And feel free, it's based on each's will, after all. Teika (Teika kazura)
