On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 08:07 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote on 27.02.2012 04:21:
#topic #810 Clarify our position on forks .fesco 810
It's just a statement that is asked for in the ticket, but nevertheless:
Shouldn't issues like this be discussed on this list first, so
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Personally, my stance on this is that, provided that the forks are
properly renamed such that they will not conflict with other forks of
the same codebase, there's no reason to disallow them. As mentioned by
Toshio in the
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Personally, my stance on this is that, provided that the forks are
properly renamed such that they will not conflict with other forks of
the same
Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) said:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Personally, my stance on this is that, provided that the forks are
properly renamed such that they will not
Kevin Fenzi wrote on 27.02.2012 04:21:
#topic #810 Clarify our position on forks .fesco 810
It's just a statement that is asked for in the ticket, but nevertheless:
Shouldn't issues like this be discussed on this list first, so FESCo
members can get a impression from the flamewar ^w discussion
