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
fixes, why would
someone spend any time at all contributing with something great? Just fork,
create your own thing and forget about ioquake.
- Original Message -
From: Tim Angus
Sent: 03/24/14 10:32 AM
To: Primary ioquake3 Discussion/Development list
Subject: Re: [ioquake3] Managing pull
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
Hey All,
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 other things for some time now.
Of course, anyon
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
why isn't anyone accepting or rejecting t
