Tim Wegner wrote:
Sure I wish Charles, David D., and Jacques had decided to maintain
their leaf branches, but like everyone else they do what their time,
interests, and priorities permit. I'm sure glad the Bering uClibc
team did what they did. I can't see the future, but whatever happens
with
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 08:48, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> Mike;
>
> Eric Spakman indeed spoke for the Bering-uClibc team and their decisions.
>
> He just expressed a view in the discussion
KP,
He did, and I expressed mine.
> - that's what disscussions are for.
True.
> If someone will build a new
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 09:35, Tim Wegner wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> > I'm probably a dinosaur, and my time has passed. :-(
>
> Mike, cut yourself some slack. You are not a dinosaur. But you are
> clearly discouraged, not suprising given all you have to personally
> deal with. But if there
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 09:30, Martin Hejl wrote:
> I'm utterly confused. In the mail you linked to, you wrote:
>
> >1. Use of evolution as a development model.
> >2. Tolerance for new ideas and differing opinions.
> >3. Full control by lead developers of release/branch direction
> >
Mike wrote:
> I'm probably a dinosaur, and my time has passed. :-(
Mike, cut yourself some slack. You are not a dinosaur. But you are
clearly discouraged, not suprising given all you have to personally
deal with. But if there is any way you can avoid projecting onto the
project your o
Hi Mike,
note - when I say "we", I'm speaking of the Bering uClibc team (and not
LEAF as a whole or developers from other branches).
>>Ofcourse we look at things like kernel 2.6 and initramfs and we will
>>> move on when it gain us something, but one step at a time.
>
>
> The 'we' above is a
Mike;
Eric Spakman indeed spoke for the Bering-uClibc team and their decisions.
He just expressed a view in the discussion - that's what disscussions are for.
If someone will build a new branch like Alpine it would be fine, and may speed
Bering-uClibc with 2.6 kernel significantly
From day one
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 00:13, Martin Hejl wrote:
> well, that doesn't sound too bad. If it helps to share some of the
> administrative work, I wouldn't mind taking over the list management
> part (but I'd prefer to do that no sooner than april 3rd, since I'll be
> out of the country from next friday
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 03:16, Eric Spakman wrote:
> I really don't see your point. Why do you see those things as an
> improvement, what does it 'solve' (and what is Alpine?).
Eric,
Others have expressed interest in these ideas. Vinki, created a 2.6
kernel, and Alpine was a proposed new branch.
Hi Mike,
>> I don't agree with you, there is still room for evolution.
>
>Eric,
>Where?
>
>2.6 kernel <-- discouraged
>initramfs <-- discouraged
>Alpine <-- discouraged
>
>I can go on, but I think you see my point.
>
I really don't see your point. Why do you see those thing
Hi Mike,
>>so what would "taking over our mailing list management duties?" include?
>>I'm not saying I won't do it, I just don't tend to say "yes" before I
>>know what I'm getting into.
>
>
> Martin,
> Not much, unless you want to change the list configuration.
> Approximately, 30min each time y
11 matches
Mail list logo
