-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:59:25PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > > I'm not trying to sound hostile about it, it's just that it would be a > very rude thing to do to our users. ?? I did never read your messages as hostile. Yuo have been extremely gently, polite and you made as well a perfect point that i have underestimate. > > > Im working on pushing them to X.org and hopefully to get atleast an answer > > back. If there will be no answer XFree86 will be the next step, and I > > perfectly agree with you about a good deep review. > > IMO you should go XFree86 first. They are the leading implementation of > the X Window System and have a reputation for being more responsive. > They're certainly more open. Thanks for the info. I tought it was the other way around X.org -> Xfree86 from one of the previous message, but it will cost me nothing to contact them as well. > > > I leave up to you if you wish to close this bug or not. I do not mind > > either way and for sure i'm not the one going to play tennis with BTS ;) > > I'm not going to close it right now. I'm tagging it "moreinfo". The > info I need is: > > * Do these patches change the X protocol? > > If so, I will tag the bug "wontfix, upstream" and close it. > > If not, I might be willing to put then in a Debian package as long as I > understand the impact. Well that is the same idea I got also from other people. If the implementation will be the same, Debian will be able to lead the testing phase, but of course let's take a look to what will come out from Xfree86 first. > Thanks a lot for working on this. > It's a pleasure trust me. Fabio -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+E/CrhCzbekR3nhgRAlEuAKCDTiOs9gmhYR+4x7DYdf2F6SjyHwCgg/uZ LKGn49YxrMCvo5i8jqgRl/I= =WHRs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
