On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 22:54 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Alec Warner wrote:
Glep 54 now replaces (and depends on) glep 39.
Like the commit message says, the spirit of the glep was approved long
ago, if you have issues with wording please to be taking it up with me
so we can make it
Alec Warner kirjoitti:
Glep 54 now replaces (and depends on) glep 39.
Like the commit message says, the spirit of the glep was approved long
ago, if you have issues with wording please to be taking it up with me
so we can make it pretty (particularly the backwards compatibility
section)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roy Marples wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 22:54 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
you mention using Outlook in another thread and then you top post.
What e-mail infraction will you commit next? Writing e-mails in all
caps? Sending e-mails with
On 10/11/07, Torsten Veller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last council decided:
| Design phase for new projects: New projects need to post an RFC
| containing information about their goals, the plan on how to
| implement their goals and the necessary resources to -dev prior to
| creating
Alec Warner wrote:
On 10/11/07, Torsten Veller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last council decided:
| Design phase for new projects: New projects need to post an RFC
| containing information about their goals, the plan on how to
| implement their goals and the necessary resources to -dev
Glep 54 now replaces (and depends on) glep 39.
Like the commit message says, the spirit of the glep was approved long
ago, if you have issues with wording please to be taking it up with me
so we can make it pretty (particularly the backwards compatibility
section)
-Love antarus
On 10/11/07,
Alec Warner wrote:
Glep 54 now replaces (and depends on) glep 39.
Like the commit message says, the spirit of the glep was approved long
ago, if you have issues with wording please to be taking it up with me
so we can make it pretty (particularly the backwards compatibility
section)
-Love
