2016-01-16 16:18 GMT+01:00 Phil Steitz :
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it. Votes, please. All are welcom
+1
Ate
On 2016-01-16 16:18, Phil Steitz wrote:
The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
about doing it. Votes, please. All are welco
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it. Votes, please. Al
+1
On Saturday, January 16, 2016, Phil Steitz wrote:
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it. Votes, please.
Le 17/01/2016 20:19, Gilles a écrit :
> Hi Luc.
>
> [Thanks for handling the "revert" chores!]
>
> In my local "git", I've created a branch, called "long-rng",
> initially, as the name indicates, for testing "long"-based
> RNG implementations.
>
> As I've expanded on in other posts, I came to th
Hi Luc.
[Thanks for handling the "revert" chores!]
In my local "git", I've created a branch, called "long-rng",
initially, as the name indicates, for testing "long"-based
RNG implementations.
As I've expanded on in other posts, I came to think that
further changes are needed in order to obtain
Le 17/01/2016 18:45, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 1/17/16 9:33 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 17/01/2016 16:31, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>> On 1/17/16 6:34 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:56:38 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit :
>> Hi.
>>
>
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 15:57:51 +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 01/17/2016 02:34 PM, Gilles wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:56:38 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit :
[...]
So I would suggest that rather than adding a parallel rng package,
which reminds me of the dif
+1
Phil Steitz wrote:
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it. Votes, please. All are welcome to vote.
>
> [
On 1/17/16 9:33 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 17/01/2016 16:31, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> On 1/17/16 6:34 AM, Gilles wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:56:38 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit :
> Hi.
>
> Context: nobody gave an opinion on the arguments w
Le 17/01/2016 16:31, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 1/17/16 6:34 AM, Gilles wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:56:38 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit :
Hi.
Context: nobody gave an opinion on the arguments which I put
forward in these posts:
ht
On 1/17/16 6:34 AM, Gilles wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:56:38 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit :
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> Context: nobody gave an opinion on the arguments which I put
>>> forward in these posts:
>>> http://markmail.org/message/uiljlf63uucnfyy2
>>> htt
+0
Emmanuel Bourg
Le 16/01/2016 16:18, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it. Votes, pl
On 01/17/2016 02:34 PM, Gilles wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:56:38 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit :
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> Context: nobody gave an opinion on the arguments which I put
>>> forward in these posts:
>>> http://markmail.org/message/uiljlf63uucnfyy2
>>>
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:56:38 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit :
Hi.
Context: nobody gave an opinion on the arguments which I put
forward in these posts:
http://markmail.org/message/uiljlf63uucnfyy2
http://markmail.org/message/ifwuijbgjytne6w2
As a consequence
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 11:46 AM wrote:
>
> Not sure whether I'm allowed to vote. But if I am: +1
>
> Norman Shapiro
>
>
Norman, you're a member of the Commons community. You are *definitely*
allowed to vote. The Commons PMC doesn't discourage non-PMC members from
voting. Take a look at th
Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit :
> Hi.
>
> Context: nobody gave an opinion on the arguments which I put
> forward in these posts:
> http://markmail.org/message/uiljlf63uucnfyy2
> http://markmail.org/message/ifwuijbgjytne6w2
>
> As a consequence, the lack of any development policy, rather
On 01/16/2016 04:18 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it. Votes, please. All are welco
18 matches
Mail list logo