On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Daniel Fetchinson <[email protected]> wrote:
please keep SO discussion on the other thread, this thread is about the results of our planning meeting. > > Okay, I think you've made your point and after all it's reasonable. > Honestly, until today I thought what you say is the consensus among > developers but then came the comment from Mark that adding SO support > to tg2 is not that hard, which made me think that perhaps there is a > chance that this will happen. Now I'm back to my previous mindset that > it won't happen. > > Long live 1.x branch (with a possible fork using an extra-mega-cool brand > name)! > I'm sorry but that seems like an argument of someone that only takes from open source. why don't YOU go ahead and add support for so in tg2? you have the good to go as an external package, lots of TG1 components are now like this, tw, catwalk2, repoze.what, etc. Your last remark is really bad, the only reason 1.x is present is for CP3, in fact I don't think SO is even part of the goals of 1.5, I don't see why it will get drop... but I sure think 1.5 will be better off without expending time maintaining it (I'm not a maintainer of that branch so I have no say there). That said please stop the FUD, TG on CP people do not want to fork, they just want to keep their old apps running. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
