On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, Stephen Hansen <me+list/pyt...@ixokai.io> wrote: > On 2/4/11 10:34 AM, rantingrick wrote: > > > But we need to receive the old idlefork or > > have them delete the old idle fork as too much confusion will spread > > with when two idleforks exists. > > This is nonsense. And probably just another excuse for you to rant > instead of actually doing something of any use.
Thats a very *ironic* thing to say Stephan! > IDLEfork was a specific project which ended. Exactly. The key word here is ENDED! The changes were rolled back into Pythons stdlib. > It doesn't need to be > "taken over" or "deleted" -- it served its purpose and there's nothing > wrong with its history being preserved. history translated: old asss shmit > Your new idea for a project has > very different aims and a very different agenda from the idlefork that was. No, both my idea and the old idea was to improve IDLE. What is so different about that? > So name your new project something else. reIDLE, maybe. Or unIDLE. Or > whatever else. OK, name yourself something else, like naysayer, gossip-hound, or troll. > Put your money where your mouth is. ditto! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
