On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 05:01:59PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> That's how I originally interepreted your query. I feel the trade-off
> between it being accidentally intepreted a "sulk" and it attracting
> meaningful results (not mere community support) means we should err
> on the side of omitting i
Hi Holger,
> we could have a paragraph "you might be wondering about why less things
> have recently happened in the reproducible builds efforts and this is
> because lack of funding. Please contact us if you can help us getting
> our work funded again."
That's how I originally interepreted your
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Please review the draft for week 158's blog post [..]
This has now been published; many thanks to all who contributed!
Please share the following URL:
https://reproducible-builds.org/blog/posts/158/
Alternatively, if you are into that kind of thing, please
On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 07:55:39PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > looks good to me, though suprisingly short.
> Well, alas, there's not much I can do about that at report-writing
> time…
sure.
> > and now I wonder whether we should mention again that we lack funding
> > atm, which hugely contribut
Holger,
> > Please review the draft for week 158's blog post:
> > https://reproducible-builds.org/blog/posts/158/
>
> looks good to me, though suprisingly short.
Well, alas, there's not much I can do about that at report-writing
time…
> and now I wonder wheth
On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 04:37:22PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Please review the draft for week 158's blog post:
> https://reproducible-builds.org/blog/posts/158/
looks good to me, though suprisingly short.
(and I would like to get back the word "draft" into the
Hi all,
Please review the draft for week 158's blog post:
https://reproducible-builds.org/blog/posts/158/
Feel free to commit any changes directly to _blog/posts/158.md in Git:
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/reproducible/reproducible-website.git/
I am very happy to reword and/or r
