On 30 Dec 2014, at 10:56, Thomas Lübking wrote:
On Dienstag, 30. Dezember 2014 16:31:20 CEST, Martin Klapetek wrote:
Not necessarily, some projects may just be finished and don't need
more
commits.
Yes, of course - but I'd assume they'd be transferred from "scratch"
to playground/extragear
On Dienstag, 30. Dezember 2014 16:31:20 CEST, Martin Klapetek wrote:
Not necessarily, some projects may just be finished and don't need more
commits.
Yes, of course - but I'd assume they'd be transferred from "scratch" to
playground/extragear/whatever then?
Also I did not mean to imply "you
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Thomas Lübking
wrote:
>
> IMO, a scratch repo should be hyperactive by concept and if it isn't, it
> probably settled and is good for deletion unless explicit veto.
>
Not necessarily, some projects may just be finished and don't need more
commits.
Then the quest
On 29 Dec 2014, at 17:13, Thomas Lübking wrote:
On Montag, 29. Dezember 2014 22:25:33 CEST, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
They don't. If I remember conversations of four years ago correctly,
it's partly out of the fear of horrible rants from users that decide
two years later that in fact they *did* wa
> On jun 14, 2014, 8:54 a.m., David Faure wrote:
> > What if the file isn't local?
> >
> > Sounds to me like the bug is elsewhere.
> >
> > Of course for local files, showing a local path looks better than a
> > file:/// URL, so this could be improved, but in a way that doesn't break
> > remot
