John-Mark Bell wrote:
> Oh, and I'm *still* waiting for someone who isn't a member of the
> NetSurf development team to thank our GSoC students for their hard work
> this summer.
>
> John.
>
Thanks to the team from me, too, who made it all so much more coherent :-)
I've really learnt an importa
In message <1253456718.5804.440.ca...@duiker>
John-Mark Bell wrote:
> Oh, and I'm *still* waiting for someone who isn't a member of the
> NetSurf development team to thank our GSoC students for their hard work
> this summer.
A very timely reminder... Thanks, guys, for all the hard work
On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 16:10 +0200, Xavier Tardy wrote:
> I think it's important to keep alive important projects like the Netsurf
> browser for RISC OS.
Then please do something about it.
> Of course if this is not even seen as important by the Netsurf team,
> then let's forget it.
I have exp
Vince M Hudd a écrit :
Rob Kendrick wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:42:49 +0100 Tim Hill wrote:
As I said elsewhere, if the sky turns yellow with pink spots and 500
people commit to support a developer, it won't necessarily be me - the
pledge is just worded that way.
I
In article , Vince M Hudd
wrote:
> Rob Kendrick wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:42:49 +0100 Tim Hill wrote:
> > > As I said elsewhere, if the sky turns yellow with pink spots and
> > > 500 people commit to support a developer, it won't necessarily be
> > > me - the pledge is just worded that
Tim Hill a écrit :
In article <20090919113634.422f6...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>, Rob
Kendrick wrote:
I think you can assume that if everybody's missed your point, it is
your explanation of it that is at fault. Perhaps you could try again?
I have not given a simple explanation
Rob Kendrick wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:42:49 +0100 Tim Hill wrote:
> > As I said elsewhere, if the sky turns yellow with pink spots and 500
> > people commit to support a developer, it won't necessarily be me - the
> > pledge is just worded that way.
> > Is that clear now?
> As mud.
T
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:42:49 +0100
Tim Hill wrote:
> As I said elsewhere, if the sky turns yellow with pink spots and 500
> people commit to support a developer, it won't necessarily be me - the
> pledge is just worded that way.
>
> Is that clear now?
As mud.
B.
In article <20090919113634.422f6...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>, Rob
Kendrick wrote:
> I think you can assume that if everybody's missed your point, it is
> your explanation of it that is at fault. Perhaps you could try again?
I have not given a simple explanation so I can't try again; but I
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 10:18:37 +0100
Tim Hill wrote:
> In article <20090918232452.30c5f...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
> Rob Kendrick wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:58:23 +0100 Tim Hill wrote:
>
> > > Are there 500 user of the RISC OS version of NetSurf willing to
> > > donate £4 a month
In article <20090918232452.30c5f...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>, Rob
Kendrick wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:58:23 +0100 Tim Hill wrote:
> > Are there 500 user of the RISC OS version of NetSurf willing to
> > donate £4 a month to support a developer?
> >
> > www.pledgebank.com/netsurf4risco
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:58:23 +0100
Tim Hill wrote:
> Are there 500 user of the RISC OS version of NetSurf willing to
> donate £4 a month to support a developer?
>
> www.pledgebank.com/netsurf4riscos
Can I ask what happens if your patches aren't accepted, for whatever
reason?
This is why we've
Rob Kendrick a écrit :
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:34:53 +0100
aw29...@gmail.com wrote:
In all of this, our preference has been for option 1. It would,
however, be remiss of us not to point out the inevitable result of
option 1 not happening (i.e. option 2).
One idea is doing what 99% of
In article <509ca47aa6rh.li...@phone.coop>, Russell Hafter - Lists
wrote:
> The adverts tend to take much longer to load than the actual data, and
> they also reload frequently. AFAIK the adverts are loaded using
> Javascript, so with NetSuf they do not load.
Many adverts on the Web these days ar
In article <509c71f91eba...@e-allen.me.uk>,
Barry E Allen wrote:
> Don't be silly. It is not a choice that I have to make. I
> rarely use Netsurf, preferring to use Google Chrome on my
> PeeCee or Firefox on my ASUS EeePC. Why would anyone use
> Netsurf when there are much more capable browser
In message <800994.16379...@web111312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
WP Blatchley wrote:
> Hi all,
> Well despite Rob Kenricks's probably highly accurate description of
> how development for RISC OS is ("hateful"!), I am interested, and have
> expressed that interest on the developers' mailing li
Hi all,
Well despite Rob Kenricks's probably highly accurate description of how
development for RISC OS is ("hateful"!), I am interested, and have expressed
that interest on the developers' mailing list. And I'm not the only one.
I've had quick responses to the (so far few) questions I've asked
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:03:07 +0100
Barry E Allen wrote:
> So, for me, RISC OS is not dead. Netsurf, for me, is dead.
Sounds like it was as soon as you decided to browse elsewhere, which of
course is your choice. I wonder why *you* are still on these lists.
What I object to is people who have h
In article <20090918003025.2a35d...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>, Rob
Kendrick wrote:
> Perhaps it is time to accept that there is nobody available to do the
> work. If people don't like that, it's time to start learning
> software engineering and get involved, or learning to accept that
> RISC
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:30:07 +0100
Dave Symes wrote:
> No John, I wasn't asking why you (J-M B) were here, I thinks that's
> quite obvious, I was asking Why Rob was still here in RO land,
> considering his antipathy towards the OS both here and elsewhere.
> This just happened to be the place wher
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:34:53 +0100
aw29...@gmail.com wrote:
> > In all of this, our preference has been for option 1. It would,
> > however, be remiss of us not to point out the inevitable result of
> > option 1 not happening (i.e. option 2).
>
>
> One idea is doing what 99% of people never se
In message <1253217547.5804.335.ca...@duiker>
John-Mark Bell wrote:
> Where there is a problem, it is that the RISC OS frontend is actively
> preventing us merging a number of features into the main development
> stream. We'd like to see that resolved so that we can merge the features
In article <1253218143.5804.343.ca...@duiker>,
John-Mark Bell wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 20:20 +0100, Dave Symes wrote:
> > In article <20090917110637.7f0f2...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
> >Rob Kendrick wrote:
> > [Snippy]
> > > I suspect strongly that John-Mark considers the core
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 20:20 +0100, Dave Symes wrote:
> In article <20090917110637.7f0f2...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
>Rob Kendrick wrote:
> [Snippy]
> > I suspect strongly that John-Mark considers the core engine a much more
> > interesting problem than a load of GUI glue for a platform
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 11:23 +0100, jess hampshire wrote:
> 2009/9/17 John-Mark Bell :
>
> > I don't understand this line of questioning.
> >
> > For NetSurf to be more useful generally, it requires much work to be
> > carried out on the core engine. Improvements to the core engine benefit
> > ever
In article <20090917110637.7f0f2...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
Rob Kendrick wrote:
[Snippy]
> I suspect strongly that John-Mark considers the core engine a much more
> interesting problem than a load of GUI glue for a platform that's
> hateful to develop on.
> B.
Which begs the question.
In article
<4c6a9b0d0909170252nf91f98eqd9f6afc0319fb...@mail.gmail.com>,
A W wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM, John-Mark Bell
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 00:08 +0100, aw29...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> In message <1253105573.5804.236.ca...@duiker>
> >> John-Mark Bel
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:36:43 +0100
Russell Hafter - Lists wrote:
> > Writing NetSurf is fun. Where it runs doesn't really come
> > into it. It's a hobby.
>
> Which, at the end of the day, means that anyone who uses it
> but does not or cannot contribute has to take it as it is.
Welcome to the
In article <1253181177.5804.293.ca...@duiker>, John-Mark
Bell wrote:
> In NetSurf's case, I can guarantee that it would be less
> developed, less robust, and less usable had development
> remained solely on RISC OS.
> Having access to such tools as valgrind and gdb is
> invaluable. The tooling o
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 11:16 +0100, Simon Smith wrote:
> May I ask what proportion of bug reports come from the users of different
> platforms, particularly RISC OS as that's the main one I use?
You can, but I can't answer with absolute accuracy. The vast majority,
unsurprisingly, have come from
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:23:16 +0100
jess hampshire wrote:
> I guess is depends on the reason you do it. If it is just to produce a
> technically good program then obviously there is no question to the
> logic.
>
> However if the reason is to get Netsurf used on the maximum number of
> desktops, t
2009/9/17 John-Mark Bell :
> I don't understand this line of questioning.
>
> For NetSurf to be more useful generally, it requires much work to be
> carried out on the core engine. Improvements to the core engine benefit
> every platform on which NetSurf is available. Therefore, it should be
> bla
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:16:19 +0100
Simon Smith wrote:
> May I ask what proportion of bug reports come from the users of
> different platforms, particularly RISC OS as that's the main one I
> use? And, sailing a little closer to the wind, what proportion of
> useful bug reports?
The RISC OS users
In message <1253180442.5804.281.ca...@duiker>
John-Mark Bell wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 00:15 +0100, Steve Fryatt wrote:
>
> > I think the main problem here is that the majority seem happy to sit back,
> > wring their hands and state how terrible this all is -- then wait for
> > s
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:52:14 +0100
A W wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM, John-Mark Bell
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 00:08 +0100, aw29...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> In message <1253105573.5804.236.ca...@duiker>
> >> John-Mark Bell wrote:
>
> > In practice, this means that I
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 10:52 +0100, A W wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM, John-Mark Bell
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 00:08 +0100, aw29...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> In message <1253105573.5804.236.ca...@duiker>
> >> John-Mark Bell wrote:
>
> > In practice, this means that I'l
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 00:32 +0100, Steve Fryatt wrote:
> I would imagine that there is a *vast* difference between bodging the
> front-end to ensure that it keeps working with less dramatic (in API terms)
> developments in the browser core, and completely restructuring the front-end
> to make it w
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM, John-Mark Bell
wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 00:08 +0100, aw29...@gmail.com wrote:
>> In message <1253105573.5804.236.ca...@duiker>
>> John-Mark Bell wrote:
> In practice, this means that I'll be focussing on the core engine. The
> RISC OS frontend lo
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:44:30 +0100
jess hampshire wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 00:08 +0100, aw29...@gmail.com wrote:
> > In message <1253105573.5804.236.ca...@duiker>
> > John-Mark Bell wrote:
>
> > The RISC OS frontend does not have active maintenance, which
> is the problem.
>
>
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 00:08 +0100, aw29...@gmail.com wrote:
> In message <1253105573.5804.236.ca...@duiker>
> John-Mark Bell wrote:
> The RISC OS frontend does not have active maintenance, which
is the problem.
Does a front end require a c programmer or would for example it be
possibl
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 00:15 +0100, Steve Fryatt wrote:
> I think the main problem here is that the majority seem happy to sit back,
> wring their hands and state how terrible this all is -- then wait for someone
> else to step forward to take on the work (or even demand that someone else
> does).
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 00:08 +0100, aw29...@gmail.com wrote:
> In message <1253105573.5804.236.ca...@duiker>
> John-Mark Bell wrote:
>
> > That doesn't solve the problem -- the RISC OS frontend has no active
> > maintainer. I've been taking sometime out and modifying the RISC OS
> > fro
On 17 Sep, Steve Fryatt wrote:
> As such, it seems to have been the usual suspects who have offered to
> help: those already doing other things. Certainly if I picked up
> NetSurf now, something else would have to give, which in all
> probability would just move the complaints from this list to an
On 17 Sep, aw29...@gmail.com wrote in message
<512be99b50.and...@no.reply>:
> In message <1253105573.5804.236.ca...@duiker>
> John-Mark Bell wrote:
>
> >>> Future major changes to the way in which the core works are liable
> >>> to require corresponding changes in platform frontends.
On 16 Sep, Rob Kendrick wrote in message
<20090916125441.08b4b...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:51:32 +0200
> Amin Kharchi wrote:
>
> > It would be fair for any RISC OS user if the homepage says the truth:
> > RISC OS has no priority! Its only the rest.
>
> The RISC
On 16 Sep, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote in message
:
> On 16 Sep at 14:58, Tim Hill wrote:
>
> > Are there 500 user of the RISC OS version of NetSurf willing to donate
> > £4 a month to support a developer?
> >
> > www.pledgebank.com/netsurf4riscos
>
> Anyhow I am delighted, apparently, to be the fir
In message <1253105573.5804.236.ca...@duiker>
John-Mark Bell wrote:
>>> Future major changes to the way in which the core works are liable to
>>> require corresponding changes in platform frontends. If any given
>>> frontend has no maintainer, then the chances of the required changes
>
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:16:10 +0200, Paul Sprangers wibbled on for an age:
> David Pitt wrote:
>
> > The flaw in this is that none of the current NetSurf developers are RISC
> > OS programmers, they may not even be RISC OS users.
>
> That really surprises me. I always thought that John-Mark c.s.
On 16 Sep at 14:58, Tim Hill wrote:
> In article
> <4c6a9b0d0909160539q561ea62aj8996cbfdc7813...@mail.gmail.com>,
>A W wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> Are there 500 user of the RISC OS version of NetSurf willing to donate
> £4 a month to support a developer?
>
> www.pledgebank.com/netsurf4riscos
>
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:09:36 +0100
dave higton wrote:
> Quoting John-Mark Bell :
>
> > Frankly, we'd take anything we get right now. Contrary to popular
> > belief, we have no desire to ditch the RISC OS frontend out of hand.
> > Additionally, we have a great deal of experience in introducing ne
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:04:42 +0100
dave higton wrote:
> So why don't I work on NetSurf? Well, I've looked at a couple of
> major projects in C written by other people. I eventually took
> fright after failing to make head or tail of them. (If C isn't
> written following good coding standards,
Quoting John-Mark Bell :
> Frankly, we'd take anything we get right now. Contrary to popular
> belief, we have no desire to ditch the RISC OS frontend out of hand.
> Additionally, we have a great deal of experience in introducing new
> developers to our codebase and ways of working.
Can the chang
Quoting Tim Hill :
> Personally, the only way I could do it would be to learn the rest of 'C'
> first and then get stuck in to the probable hours, days, weeks, months
> necessary. I and others need to eat, pay bills and have a roof above.
I think the idea is to work on NetSurf instead of wasting
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:58:23 +0100
Tim Hill wrote:
> In the meantime, continued begging at the feet of the developers is
> unlikely to bear fruit. They have moved on. Though why onto other
> platforms replete with more capable browsers may remain a mystery to
> some of us. ;-)
Writing NetSurf is
In article <4c6a9b0d0909160539q561ea62aj8996cbfdc7813...@mail.gmail.com>,
A W wrote:
[Snip]
> Can you not just take some time out and modify the RO front end?
I know the answer is going to be: If has the time and
enthusiasm, why doesn't do the job?
Round-and-round we go.
It has been stat
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 02:27:48PM +0100, David J. Ruck wrote:
>> A W wrote:
>>> Can you not just take some time out and modify the RO front end?
>> Can't you? Personally, I don't have the will power.
> Perhaps you should just stick to working on drippingsarcasm.lib.so :-)
Perhaps you should lea
Rob Kendrick wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:39:47 +0100
A W wrote:
Can you not just take some time out and modify the RO front end?
Can't you? Personally, I don't have the will power.
Perhaps you should just stick to working on drippingsarcasm.lib.so :-)
--
David J. Ruck
email: dr...@druc
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:39:47 +0100
A W wrote:
> Can you not just take some time out and modify the RO front end?
Can't you? Personally, I don't have the will power.
B.
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:39 +0100, A W wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:53 PM, John-Mark Bell
> wrote:
> > Future major changes to the way in which the core works are liable to
> > require corresponding changes in platform frontends. If any given
> > frontend has no maintainer, then the chance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:53 PM, John-Mark Bell
wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 12:51 +0200, Amin Kharchi wrote:
> Actually, they show the exact opposite of your interpretation. We've
> spent the last 2.5 years bending over backwards to ensure that the RISC
> OS frontend still works, despite it n
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:51:32 +0200
Amin Kharchi wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:37:41 +0100, Rob Kendrick
> wrote:
>
> >> That really surprises me. I always thought that John-Mark c.s. were
> >> genuine RISC OS users. Apparently, the assumption that contribution
> >> to a RISC OS mailing list i
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 12:51 +0200, Amin Kharchi wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:37:41 +0100, Rob Kendrick
> wrote:
>
> >> That really surprises me. I always thought that John-Mark c.s. were
> >> genuine RISC OS users. Apparently, the assumption that contribution
> >> to a RISC OS mail
Hello!
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:37:41 +0100, Rob Kendrick
wrote:
>> That really surprises me. I always thought that John-Mark c.s. were
>> genuine RISC OS users. Apparently, the assumption that contribution
>> to a RISC OS mailing list implies RISC OS usership, is indicating a
>> lazy mind - which
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:16:10 +0200
Paul Sprangers wrote:
> David Pitt wrote:
>
> > The flaw in this is that none of the current NetSurf developers are
> > RISC OS programmers, they may not even be RISC OS users.
>
> That really surprises me. I always thought that John-Mark c.s. were
> genuine
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:09:09 +0200
Paul Sprangers wrote:
> I therefore suspect that the main reason for such development is the
> joy of programming. If that is true, why not maintain the RISC OS
> front end your self? It will at least guarantee quite a number of
> very grateful users,
Because
David Pitt wrote:
> The flaw in this is that none of the current NetSurf developers are RISC
> OS programmers, they may not even be RISC OS users.
That really surprises me. I always thought that John-Mark c.s. were genuine
RISC OS users. Apparently, the assumption that contribution to a RISC OS
Paul Sprangers wrote:
> From recent mails I understood that the RISC OS frontend of NetSurf may
> eventually be dropped, since it's lack of maintenance is obstructing the
> development of the core code.
>
> This may sound reasonable, but somehow I don't fully understand things.
> Apart from som
Dear John-Mark, Rob and other developers,
>From recent mails I understood that the RISC OS frontend of NetSurf may
eventually be dropped, since it's lack of maintenance is obstructing the
development of the core code.
This may sound reasonable, but somehow I don't fully understand things.
Apart
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 22:25 +0100, Russell Hafter - Lists wrote:
> Surely the developers have better things to do than deal
> with those who either have no time to do the work that needs
> doing or those who do not have the necessary expertise?
Frankly, we'd take anything we get right now. Contra
In article ,
wrote:
> I'm wondering if they've said they'd like to but don't
> have the know how or time or "provided I could work on
> x,y" etc
Why would anyone who does not have the "know how or time"
come forward in the first place?
Surely the developers have better things to do than deal
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:44:32 +0100
aw29...@gmail.com wrote:
> In message <1253020083.5804.142.ca...@duiker>
> John-Mark Bell wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:06 +0100, A W wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM, John-Mark Bell
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Indirectly. The RISC OS
In message <1253020083.5804.142.ca...@duiker>
John-Mark Bell wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:06 +0100, A W wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM, John-Mark Bell
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Indirectly. The RISC OS frontend's lack of maintenance is actively
>>> blocking several of these cha
On 15 Sep 2009 David J. Ruck wrote:
> Michael Drake wrote:
>> Sadly the number of users of NetSurf for RISC OS has nothing to do with
>> whether it can be maintained. What counts is whether it has any developers
>> working on it. For the last two years it has not had a developer.
>>
>> It's certa
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:36:28 +0100
"David J. Ruck" wrote:
> Michael Drake wrote:
> > Sadly the number of users of NetSurf for RISC OS has nothing to do
> > with whether it can be maintained. What counts is whether it has
> > any developers working on it. For the last two years it has not had
> >
Michael Drake wrote:
Sadly the number of users of NetSurf for RISC OS has nothing to do with
whether it can be maintained. What counts is whether it has any developers
working on it. For the last two years it has not had a developer.
It's certainly unfortunate for RISC OS, but if noone's willing
On 15 Sep 2009 Mike Hobbs wrote:
> Withdrawing support for RISC OS, to me, is crazy. There are already
> far more capable browsers for other platforms so I never use NetSurf
> on anything other than RISC OS.
Absolutely!
--
_
|_|. _ Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/
|\_
In article <742497912b2aacf771d7ff726b46a39e26601...@localhost>,
Mike Hobbs wrote:
> Well, I don't know how many people are using NetSurf on each platform
> but I ONLY use NetSurf on RISC OS because its the most useful and as
> far as I know the only maintained browser for RISC OS.
Sadly the
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:33:08 +0100
Mike Hobbs wrote:
> I'd love to offer support but I don't have appropriate skills or the
> time.
And neither does anybody else; that's the problem. (Time and
willpower, mainly.)
B.
In message <20090915140951.35722...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>
Rob Kendrick wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:06:02 +0100
> Andrew Weston wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM, John-Mark Bell
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Indirectly. The RISC OS frontend's lack of maintenance is actively
>>> blocki
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:06:02 +0100
Andrew Weston wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM, John-Mark Bell
> wrote:
>
> > Indirectly. The RISC OS frontend's lack of maintenance is actively
> > blocking several of these changes being merged. The longer this
> > situation persists, the more likel
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:06 +0100, A W wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM, John-Mark Bell
> wrote:
>
> > Indirectly. The RISC OS frontend's lack of maintenance is actively
> > blocking several of these changes being merged. The longer this
> > situation persists, the more likely I am to un
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM, John-Mark Bell
wrote:
> Indirectly. The RISC OS frontend's lack of maintenance is actively
> blocking several of these changes being merged. The longer this
> situation persists, the more likely I am to unilaterally remove support
> for the RISC OS frontend, as i
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 12:42 +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
> Michael Drake wrote on 15 Sep :
> > ... As part of his work on the GTK front end he has also moved
> > functionality from the RISC OS front end to the multi-platform code
> > core ...
>
> this sort of phrase occurs several times in the report
Michael Drake wrote on 15 Sep :
> ... As part of his work on the GTK front end he has also moved
> functionality from the RISC OS front end to the multi-platform code
> core ...
this sort of phrase occurs several times in the report about the
summer's accomplishments.
am i right that it underli
84 matches
Mail list logo
