Re: [gccsdk] Further ArcEm development (or not)

2009-10-08 Thread Ralph Corderoy
Hi Peter, > > > The ArcEm CVS has been static for quite some time. > > > > Last change 2009-09-25? > > Sorry yes. "cvs log" does things in a unhelpful order. I've been > using SVN too long. Yes, I found it annoying when I went to look. $ cvs log | > sed '/^date: /!d; s#/.. .*##; s/.

Re: [gccsdk] Further ArcEm development (or not)

2009-10-07 Thread Peter Naulls
Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Hi Peter, > >> The ArcEm CVS has been static for quite some time. > > Last change 2009-09-25? Sorry yes. "cvs log" does things in a unhelpful order. I've been using SVN too long. Do you have any specific plans for ArcEm here? My biggest frustration with RPCEmu is stil

Re: [gccsdk] Further ArcEm development (or not)

2009-10-07 Thread Ralph Corderoy
Hi Theo, > The only likely problem is if SF cancels the project for being > dormant. Anyone have a link to their procedure in that case? > They threatened to do that to a project I did, last update 2003, but > the website is still there (I didn't use their CVS). It requires > someone being ale