Am 05.08.2010, 15:07 Uhr, schrieb yuppie y.2...@wcm-solutions.de:
Any thoughts?
I'm actively abstaining as while I understand the need to clean things up,
I'm not sure I understand the whole context (my lack of understanding
rather than any lack of explanation). CMF is actually empty, isn't
Hi!
Charlie Clark wrote:
I'm actively abstaining as while I understand the need to clean things up,
I'm not sure I understand the whole context (my lack of understanding
rather than any lack of explanation). CMF is actually empty, isn't it?
Apart from the history that is.
Well. It has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/5/10 16:52 , yuppie wrote:
Charlie Clark wrote:
I'm actively abstaining as while I understand the need to clean things up,
I'm not sure I understand the whole context (my lack of understanding
rather than any lack of explanation). CMF is
Hi!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 8/5/10 16:52 , yuppie wrote:
Charlie Clark wrote:
I'm actively abstaining as while I understand the need to clean things up,
I'm not sure I understand the whole context (my lack of understanding
rather than any lack of explanation). CMF is actually empty, isn't
Hi Jens!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I can't see any additional burden caused by the proposed change.
The burden will appear when people are told or get the impression that
the package represents the official sanctioned buildout for the CMF as
opposed to being a developer convenience :-) It's a
