John Spray wrote:
On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 10:15 -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
I hope we still maintain our core/gui separation even with only one
frontend left.
I'm not objecting to gtk being moved into a branch. However, I would
like to point out that the fact that it required constant compile fixes
w
John Spray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 10:15 -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
| > I hope we still maintain our core/gui separation even with only one
| > frontend left.
|
| I'm not objecting to gtk being moved into a branch. However, I would
| like to point out that the fact that it
On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 10:15 -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> I hope we still maintain our core/gui separation even with only one
> frontend left.
I'm not objecting to gtk being moved into a branch. However, I would
like to point out that the fact that it required constant compile fixes
with respect to cha
Am Sonntag, 22. Oktober 2006 18:42 schrieb José Matos:
> FWIW, if someone wants to maintain qt3 in a branch, similar to gtk, you
are
> welcome.
No, that is too much work. As long as it was in trunk and it was not too
much effort I was willing to keep it working, but I am not interested
enou
On Sunday 22 October 2006 16:42, Georg Baum wrote:
>
> That was what I wrote yesterday to André: If qt3 creates too much work and
> has to be removed, then I see no reason for gtk to stay either.
FWIW, if someone wants to maintain qt3 in a branch, similar to gtk, you are
welcome.
> Georg
--
Bo Peng wrote:
On 10/22/06, Juergen Spitzmueller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I have at least '+1' now, perhaps also a '+1' from Martin. Others?
+1.
I hope we still maintain our core/gui separation even with only one
frontend left.
I see no reason why not. At leas
Am Sonntag, 22. Oktober 2006 14:27 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
>
> The question is why do we have it there.
>
> - It is non-functional.
> - Nobody works on it¹
> - It Gets broken all the time.
>
> IMHO we should just remove it from the tree. If someone wants to
> dribble on, then that can d
On 10/22/06, Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I have at least '+1' now, perhaps also a '+1' from Martin. Others?
+1.
I hope we still maintain our core/gui separation even with only one
frontend left.
Cheers,
Bo
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I have at least '+1' now, perhaps also a '+1' from Martin. Others?
+1
Jürgen
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 03:43:47PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
| > Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| >
| > >The question is why do we have it there.
| > >
| > >- It is non-functional.
| > >- Nobody works on it¹
| > >- It Gets broken all the time.
| > >
| >
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 03:43:47PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> >The question is why do we have it there.
> >
> >- It is non-functional.
> >- Nobody works on it¹
> >- It Gets broken all the time.
> >
> >
> - It adds entries to the po files.
>
> >IMHO we should ju
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
The question is why do we have it there.
- It is non-functional.
- Nobody works on it¹
- It Gets broken all the time.
- It adds entries to the po files.
IMHO we should just remove it from the tree. If someone wants to
dribble on, then that can done in a branch
The question is why do we have it there.
- It is non-functional.
- Nobody works on it¹
- It Gets broken all the time.
IMHO we should just remove it from the tree. If someone wants to
dribble on, then that can done in a branch.
¹ One update every two months does not count as working on it,
13 matches
Mail list logo
