It is great that questions are being asked about how things do, might or should work - but tone of the original question and the ensuing discussion, in my view, unfortunate.
On Sunday, 20 January 2013 17:36:11 UTC+11, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote: > > Anyway it's seems to me that message in this thread is pretty clear: > > "We're just doing fine without people like you" > > It's a shame, but whatever I'll just shut up and let you guys roll as you > pleased > > Regards > -- > Irakli Gozalishvili > Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/ > > On Saturday, 2013-01-19 at 22:31 , Irakli Gozalishvili wrote: > > I would be curious to also see number of lost contributors. > > Regards > -- > Irakli Gozalishvili > Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/ > > On Saturday, 2013-01-19 at 22:00 , David Nolen wrote: > > I have nothing to add to this thread beyond pointing out that > ClojureScript has had _51_ contributors in the short year and a half of its > existence: http://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/graphs/contributors. > > Via JIRA. > > David > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
