On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:11:56AM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> This decision is not forever, I mean we can switch to another one in case
> problems arise during the 2.2.x life cycle.
Yes we have a good foundation for future discussion.
Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Am 06.04.2016 um 00:27 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
1. discussion
This is where we are at now. We are discussing a topic that is at least
5 years old.
Yes, and we are now already discussing this for more than 2 months. I
don't understand why so much time is necessary to come to a decision.
T
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 03:08:39AM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> p.s. sorry for not following the list. I had/have lot of stress and try to
> have a look the next days to be up to date
No problem, sorry to hear about the stress!
Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 11:34:49PM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 05.04.2016 um 14:10 schrieb Guenter Milde:
>
> >It seems you did miss my recent patch.
> >It is a pity that we could not avoid wasting of time and ressources...
> >
> > The problem is, that the new section in the Development.lyx file
Am 05.04.2016 um 14:10 schrieb Guenter Milde:
It seems you did miss my recent patch.
It is a pity that we could not avoid wasting of time and ressources...
>
> The problem is, that the new section in the Development.lyx file is a
> draft that is not finally agreed on.
I am ashamed and sad abou
On 2016-04-05, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: 7bit --]
> attached is a patch to update the layout of acmsiggraph according to the
> latest development.lyx file.
It seems you did miss my recent patch.
It is a pity that we could not avoid wasting of time and ressources...
I a
attached is a patch to update the layout of acmsiggraph according to the
latest development.lyx file.
Is this OK to go in or what else do I have to do?
thanks and regards
Uwe
p.s. sorry for not following the list. I had/have lot of stress and try
to have a look the next days to be up to date
