My bad. I equated lack of discussion with lack of progress. Sorry about that.
- eviljoel
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Zachary wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2014, at 9:04 PM, eviljoel wrote:
>
> I've been putting some thought into this too. I'm thinking it might be
> time for Zachary to pass the ma
On Mar 23, 2014, at 9:04 PM, eviljoel wrote:
> I've been putting some thought into this too. I'm thinking it might be
> time for Zachary to pass the maintainer torch onto someone. It has been
> some time since the last ioQuake3 release and it seems like he has
> consistently been busy with othe
Good ones: #48, #37, #22, #36, #14. Also, #63 and #51 are are useful.
But what bothers me the most is that no one involved with the project has cared
to take a look and comment on the PR. Contributions are just being ignored. If
no one merges, or even cares to comment, on simple and useful fixes
On 23/03/14 22:19, Vincent P. Ellis wrote:
There are lot's of PR's piling up on ioquake3's GitHub
page: https://github.com/ioquake/ioq3/pulls
Some of them are crap, some of them are useful and a few are pure gold.
Why isn't there a discussion on this list, or on GitHub itself, about
each PR? And
