❦ 23 octobre 2016 17:19 +1030, Ron :
>> > So are you asking if we should package a version that has htags
>> > removed instead of what we currently have? Because that's the
>> > essential implication of "remove the offending CGI bit".
>>
>> Yes. I have asked first here:
>>
>> https://bugs.de
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 09:55:43AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 23 octobre 2016 17:19 +1030, Ron :
> > If you're saying yes to the question I put above, then what I'm asking
> > is: what real evidence can you show to back up your assertion that
> > "nobody cares about htags", and/or what comp
❦ 23 octobre 2016 19:53 +1030, Ron :
>> So, nothing will move on your side until I bring some proof that "nobody
>> is interested in htags". Well, I won't bring any such proof either.
>
> That was a claim _you_ made in bringing this to the TC. Are you really
> saying now that you have no basis
]] Ron
> I'm appalled at the status quo. My concern is that we don't make
> that even worse with uninformed decisions. In the absence of good
> information, sometimes the best thing to do is be patient until
> more of it arrives.
I agree with this. On the other hand, waiting forever isn't pro
4 matches
Mail list logo
