A decision has been made on this issue, so let this thread die.
Whether we agree with the decision or not is up to us to act on as
individuals now, and bringing it back to the list won't do any good
but to fan further flames.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Stephen Houston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
Please find a way to stop bothering the community with this ridiculous load
of crap, even if that means forking e. Hisham you are one of the prime
reasons this community, or lack there of in your opinion, is having
trouble. Your inability to work on a project where your ideas aren't always
used/a
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Enlightenment CVS
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> +EAPI void eina_error_print(Eina_Error_Level level, const char *file,
>>const char *fnc, int line, const char *fm
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 12:51:18PM -0300, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Enlightenment CVS
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > +EAPI void eina_error_print(Eina_Error_Level level, const ch
On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 12:51:18PM -0300, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Enlightenment CVS
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +EAPI void eina_error_print(Eina_Error_Level level, const char *file,
> >const char *fnc, int line, const char *fmt, ...)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
[snip]
>
> Maybe this speaks more about your experience than the project as a
> whole. I certainly feel part of a community from years of working with
> good people that have treated each other with respect. I have
> regularly
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Enlightenment CVS
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +EAPI void eina_error_print(Eina_Error_Level level, const char *file,
>const char *fnc, int line, const char *fmt, ...)
> {
>va_list args;
>
>va_start(args, fmt);
> - _error_print(
Peter Wehrfritz wrote:
> Jorge Luis Zapata Muga schrieb:
>
>> As i said too many times, there was edata, this arguments are refered
>> to edata, not eina, you can think of eina on just the same
>> conceptually lib but developed from the base code of edata. So i
>> wasn't expecting developers on
Hisham Mardam Bey wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Some people don't want their code forked off and closed away and want
>>> all contributions to come back. This is the difference.
>>>
>>>
>> This sounds a lot like having your cake and
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Some people don't want their code forked off and closed away and want
>> all contributions to come back. This is the difference.
>>
>
> This sounds a lot like having your cake and eating it too heh. LGPL only
> stops the
Hisham Mardam Bey wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I still don't understand what about the BSD makes it not always free,
>> you can't steal the code, the free code is always there. Even if raster
>> wanted to, he could not just up and close t
Vincent Torri schrieb:
>> Actually I thought it was BSD licensed. I didn't expect that Trojan
>> horse tactic. Only after Vincent has asked me if it is ok for me to
>> switch to LGPL I realized that i contributed to a proprietary project.
>>
>
> Can you develop why a project using LGPL is a pr
> Actually I thought it was BSD licensed. I didn't expect that Trojan
> horse tactic. Only after Vincent has asked me if it is ok for me to
> switch to LGPL I realized that i contributed to a proprietary project.
Can you develop why a project using LGPL is a proprietary project ? For
me, a propr
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga schrieb:
>
> As i said too many times, there was edata, this arguments are refered
> to edata, not eina, you can think of eina on just the same
> conceptually lib but developed from the base code of edata. So i
> wasn't expecting developers on eina, i was expecting them on ed
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 08:16:45 -0400 "Hisham Mardam Bey"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > It's always been the assumption that our core libs will be BSD from
> > the bottom up. E17 is also licensed BSD.
>
> This is a decis
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I still don't understand what about the BSD makes it not always free,
> you can't steal the code, the free code is always there. Even if raster
> wanted to, he could not just up and close the code. He would have to
> make
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> You can't tell me that im wrong as i did eina and took the decisions
>>> about it. I h
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> You can't tell me that im wrong as i did eina and took the decisions
>> about it. I have to explain this as this totally wrong. Ein
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sort of ancillary to this discussion but as point of fact:
>
> GPL was designed to keep software free, away from people who would
> close it and then sell it. The "Changing the license is hard" with
> the GPL is very
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Christopher Michael
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not much of a lawyer, nor do I claim to know much about LGPL, but if in
>> fact this is the case and we can't change back at a la
Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Christopher Michael
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm not much of a lawyer, nor do I claim to know much about LGPL, but if in
>> fact this is the case and we can't change back at a later date without much
>> effort, then by all means put m
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Christopher Michael
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not much of a lawyer, nor do I claim to know much about LGPL, but if in
> fact this is the case and we can't change back at a later date without much
> effort, then by all means put me down for the "Not Changing"
Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> So your argument is that you don't need to justify your choices
>>> because you're more active right no
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, this is exactly my point about being disrespectful and hurting
>> the community. You are devaluating the opinions of volunteers
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So your argument is that you don't need to justify your choices
>> because you're more active right now?
>
> Basically, and because y
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, this is exactly my point about being disrespectful and hurting
> the community. You are devaluating the opinions of volunteers in the
> community because you get to spend your paid time on it. I still
> contribute
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So your argument is that you don't need to justify your choices
> because you're more active right now?
Basically, and because your license says so.
As for keeping core consistent, we CAN, if this is the only blocker,
Also, this is exactly my point about being disrespectful and hurting
the community. You are devaluating the opinions of volunteers in the
community because you get to spend your paid time on it. I still
contribute multiple hours each week to the project either through
reviewing patches, helping eva
So your argument is that you don't need to justify your choices
because you're more active right now?
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Mark Dickie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As another long-term enlightenment u
>
>
> This policy is not fitting current developer's need anymore, at least
> a big part of active developers. These developers are willing to
> invest even more efforts, making EFL even better, but they want some
> changes.
>
> People already said about forks and do these kind of things out of CVS
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You can't tell me that im wrong as i did eina and took the decisions
> about it. I have to explain this as this totally wrong. Eina's attempt
> was known, i already commented about it on irc and on ml, *with*
> in
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Mark Dickie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As another long-term enlightenment user (since at least 2000) who has
> never entered these discussions before I'd like to add by tuppence
> worth too. Saying that you wish to increase the community while at the
> same time cr
As another long-term enlightenment user (since at least 2000) who has
never entered these discussions before I'd like to add by tuppence
worth too. Saying that you wish to increase the community while at the
same time creating a serious rift which may cause people, devs or
users, to be put off or l
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> True, it looks like but it isnt. Let me explain. The community
> fragmentation is *not only* the license, it is mainly because of point
> 1. Point 2 is refered to people that won't code on eina and for people
> th
Zachary Goldberg wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Luchezar Petkov
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Luchezar Petkov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Our" core base libs? Obviously there's a difference in opini
Jose Gonzalez wrote:
> Luchezar Petkov wrote:
>
>>> Cedric was interested on the project by himself and because it was
>>> technically good, i think having a common library for data types is
>>> something we all agree. I think he will reply on this. And yes, the
>>> license do has something to
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Luchezar Petkov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Luchezar Petkov wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Our" core base libs? Obviously there's a difference in opinion
>> between various contributors to these cor
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luchezar Petkov wrote:
>
>> Cedric was interested on the project by himself and because it was
>>> technically good, i think having a common library for data types is
>>> something we all agree. I think he will reply on thi
Luchezar Petkov wrote:
>> Cedric was interested on the project by himself and because it was
>> technically good, i think having a common library for data types is
>> something we all agree. I think he will reply on this. And yes, the
>> license do has something to do with this, as *i* want it to
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>
> Cedric was interested on the project by himself and because it was
> technically good, i think having a common library for data types is
> something we all agree. I think he will reply on this. And yes, the
> license do has something to do with this, as *i* want it to be lgpl.
>
>
Ok, let's stop
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Mike Rutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:25:52PM +0200, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
>>>
Eina suddenly has g
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> You're going to completely ignore all of the feedback
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Mike Rutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:25:52PM +0200, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
>>
>>> Eina suddenly has gotten attention, not because of its technical
>>> features, but because i wanted it
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Mike Rutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:25:52PM +0200, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
>>
>> Eina suddenly has gotten attention, not because of its technical
>> features, but because i wanted it to be lpgl *and* raster has said
>> that he
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Timothy P. Horton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a Summer of Code student this year (so, not a /real/ E developer),
> and I was planning on keeping my head entirely out of this
> conversation, but each email makes that more and more difficult. So
> I've decided to
Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 16:00 -0500, Nick Hughart wrote:
>
>> Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:48 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
>>>
>>>
Look at the history of this project and any other complex projects. It
is very common
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Viktor Kojouharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:48 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
>> Look at the history of this project and any other complex projects. It
>> is very common that components get moved from one layer of abstraction
>> to another
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 16:00 -0500, Nick Hughart wrote:
> Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:48 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> >
> >> Look at the history of this project and any other complex projects. It
> >> is very common that components get moved from one layer of abstrac
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 16:54 -0400, Timothy P. Horton wrote:
> I'm a Summer of Code student this year (so, not a /real/ E developer),
> and I was planning on keeping my head entirely out of this
> conversation, but each email makes that more and more difficult. So
> I've decided to express my
Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:48 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
>
>> Look at the history of this project and any other complex projects. It
>> is very common that components get moved from one layer of abstraction
>> to another as it becomes apparent they fit better at anot
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:48 -0500, Nick Hughart wrote:
> Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:41 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> >
> >> Really? I have done my best to layout factual reasons and arguments
> >> but have not seen any rebuttals that have attempted to do the same.
>
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:48 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> Look at the history of this project and any other complex projects. It
> is very common that components get moved from one layer of abstraction
> to another as it becomes apparent they fit better at another location.
Speaking specificall
I'm a Summer of Code student this year (so, not a /real/ E developer),
and I was planning on keeping my head entirely out of this
conversation, but each email makes that more and more difficult. So
I've decided to express my _opinion_ on the matter of the E community
(I'm have no preference
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Hisham Mardam Bey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Consensus is how healthy communities operate, so your second point
>> would be that E is an unhealthy community.
>
> Nathan, E *is* an unheal
Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:41 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
>
>> Really? I have done my best to layout factual reasons and arguments
>> but have not seen any rebuttals that have attempted to do the same.
>>
>>
> True, you have. And I didn't say otherwise. What I sa
Look at the history of this project and any other complex projects. It
is very common that components get moved from one layer of abstraction
to another as it becomes apparent they fit better at another location.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Viktor Kojouharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Viktor Kojouharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:41 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
>> Really? I have done my best to layout factual reasons and arguments
>> but have not seen any rebuttals that have attempted to do the same.
>>
> True, you have
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:33 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You're going to completely ignore all of the feedback you received on
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:25:52PM +0200, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
>
> Eina suddenly has gotten attention, not because of its technical
> features, but because i wanted it to be lpgl *and* raster has said
> that he wants to push eina's effort. That's the real thing, nobody
> cared about it o
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:41 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> Really? I have done my best to layout factual reasons and arguments
> but have not seen any rebuttals that have attempted to do the same.
>
True, you have. And I didn't say otherwise. What I said was, more than
half just don't care.
And
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 16:22 -0400, Jaime Thomas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > ah, fine... so you all use BSD's libC, do not use GNU LibC or any
> > other LGPL library...
> >
> > --
> > Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> > http://profu
Really? I have done my best to layout factual reasons and arguments
but have not seen any rebuttals that have attempted to do the same.
On 8/6/08, Viktor Kojouharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:20 -0500, Nick Hughart wrote:
>> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>> > On Wed, A
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Consensus is how healthy communities operate, so your second point
> would be that E is an unhealthy community.
Nathan, E *is* an unhealthy community. To be honest, "E" is not even a
community. We are nothing more than a
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:20 -0500, Nick Hughart wrote:
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Now that will be the case, but when Eina was first brought back up,
the license was not mentioned and we were happy to see the work to
unify data libs happening.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You're going to completely ignore all of the feedback you received on
>> this issue and just change the license without a consensus?
>>
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We don't want the ability to cross-pollinate code with those projects
> and they are SEPARATE PROJECTS. The goal of eina was to unify around
> one shared data lib, so why would we not be using eina?
Because you don't lik
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're going to completely ignore all of the feedback you received on
> this issue and just change the license without a consensus?
>
Ok, let's begin on *how* i see this.
Eina's ideas hasn't been around for short time,
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ah, fine... so you all use BSD's libC, do not use GNU LibC or any
> other LGPL library...
>
> --
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> http://profusion.mobi embedded systems
> --
> MSN
We don't want the ability to cross-pollinate code with those projects
and they are SEPARATE PROJECTS. The goal of eina was to unify around
one shared data lib, so why would we not be using eina?
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 20
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTE
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
Have fun getting any of the libs in CVS to use Ei
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Have fun getting any of the libs in CVS to use Eina now. Just more
>>> split effort...
>>>
>>
>> Since
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Have fun getting any of the libs in CVS to use Eina now. Just more
>> split effort...
>>
>
> Since they're basically the only doing any code in CVS, it will be as
> hard as before
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have fun getting any of the libs in CVS to use Eina now. Just more
> split effort...
Since they're basically the only doing any code in CVS, it will be as
hard as before.
--
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
http://profusion.mobi
Have fun getting any of the libs in CVS to use Eina now. Just more
split effort...
Enlightenment CVS wrote:
> Enlightenment CVS committal
>
> Author : turran
> Project : e17
> Module : proto/eina
>
> Dir : e17/proto/eina
>
>
> Modified Files:
> COPYING
> Added Files:
> OLD-COP
You're going to completely ignore all of the feedback you received on
this issue and just change the license without a consensus?
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Enlightenment CVS
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Enlightenment CVS committal
>
> Author : turran
> Project : e17
> Module : proto/eina
>
80 matches
Mail list logo
