On 26/04/11 at 21:41 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> Hi !
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Lucas Nussbaum
> wrote:
> > Shouldn't we remove ctioga2, and only keep ctioga in the archive?
>
> In this case, the other way around. But as ctioga2 is quite fresh,
> I'm waiting for others to swi
Hi !
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Lucas Nussbaum
wrote:
> Shouldn't we remove ctioga2, and only keep ctioga in the archive?
In this case, the other way around. But as ctioga2 is quite fresh,
I'm waiting for others to switch. I'm actually thinking of eventually
having ctioga2 providing a
Hi,
Shouldn't we remove ctioga2, and only keep ctioga in the archive? I
don't think that we should continue to maintain several
versions/branches of the same software.
The same applies to webgen, and to amrita.
Thanks,
- Lucas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ruby-requ...@lists.debian.org
Thanks.. I'll try to write up the test case and finish the ruby-bcrypt.
Regards
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Lucas Nussbaum
wrote:
> On 22/04/11 at 23:52 +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Lucas Nussbaum
>> wrote:
>> > On 22/04/11 at 23:35 +0530, Vasudev Kamat
On 22/04/11 at 23:52 +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Lucas Nussbaum
> wrote:
> > On 22/04/11 at 23:35 +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Lucas Nussbaum
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 22/04/11 at 21:25 +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
> >> >> De
5 matches
Mail list logo