Hi, Nick Holland wrote on Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 07:49:30AM -0400:
> about the broad general idea? Sure, if it is "our" project, > it should be there. It certainly is. It didn't really gain traction before it was imported into our tree. Both main developers develop almost exclusively on OpenBSD. It matured because the OpenBSD base system heavily and uncompromisingly relied on it before anybody else did. Very relevant parts of the development were done during OpenBSD hackathons. During the last year, the majority of patches have been committed to OpenBSD before being committed to the portable version of mandoc at bsd.lv. OpenBSD-current and even the OpenBSD 5.4 release had the code that is now called mandoc 1.12.2 long before that 1.12.2 release was made. And that's not just Kristaps and my point of view, other projects look at it the same way, see for example http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/2013/10/07/12575.html http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/2009/10/28/4952.html > I always like pointing out to people when they are using > OpenBSD products...or when they should. :) > > HOWEVER, if you go to the other projects linked there, there's a > difference both in terms of the "flavor" of the website AND the outright > statement "... is part of the OpenBSD Project". Whether mandoc "needs" > a Puffy logo, dunno (probably not), Well, maybe it didn't absolutely need it, but thanks for the nice idea, it looks good. Also try clicking on the Puffy on http://mdocml.bsd.lv/ . > but I guess I would like to at least see a link back saying > that mandoc is an OpenBSD project. Sure, that was missing. Fixed now. So, after improving these points, i put the link onto the page today. Thanks for you feedback, Ingo
