On October 12, 2009, Jannis Pohlmann wrote: > I totally agree, all of these specs should be hosted on fd.o, but this > was discussed over and over again and none of the administrative people > ever commented on any of the requests to improve things and make the > fd.o spec "approval" and maintenance process more transparent. That's > why some of them ended up on gitorious (temporarily).
exactly; i'd be MORE than happy to see the repo on fd.o. the only reason it isn't is that getting an account with fd.o so you can put your clones up where we can all get to them in one place is far too hard. having things like merge requests is a wonderful bonus as well, but not a deal breaker. having a high barrier to entry is, however. that said, we can in the meantime we can improve the spec process which means better meta-documentation for them, keeping them centralized, etc. that's far more important than where they are for the moment. -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
