robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 1/2/07, Serge Knystautas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/1/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Much code has been written in hurry, with the simple goal to create a
> strawman implementation. Details and a much better review can be done
> after a proposal will be done IF we'll have agreement on the solution.
Please make the effort to be inclusive. If you tell people you are
using this branch as a sandbox a) I know what to do with these commit
notices and b) could get involved in the fun if I had time.
+1
there are many good practical reasons for open development (as well as
philosophical ones).
some of which may not be so clear at first. for example, the mailing
lists are a vital source of information about open source projects.
- robert
Feel free to ask questions or to give hints or to put your hands
directly in the branch. I'll feel free to stop you if I'll think our
efforts are not compatible and need more discussions.
The lack of information about the sandbox is due to a couple of causes:
1) Both I and Norman have not clear idea of what we do there: we are
experimenting and I still don't know what I will do the next time I'll
open the workspace to play some more hours on that code.
2) James Server already have big important ongoing votes and proposal
that deserve much more attention and discussion than experimental code.
Some pmc member already declared he was unable to follow server-dev for
the last weeks, so I thought it was better to avoid to overflow people
buffers.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
