On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 05:33, Harold L Hunt II wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > It seems like development for setup.exe is sort of stalled. > > I agree completely. > > > At the very least, it would be nice to get out a new release which > > resized correctly. I know that the current implementation isn't perfect > > but I wonder if it is better than the alternative of having a new user a > > week sending in a suggestion that the browser should be resizeable. > > > > Can we release setup.exe as is and maybe think about revitalizing > > development somehow? It would be nice if all of the things that > > the parser understands were actually understand by the rest of > > the program. > > I would like to see this very much and think it is a wise decision. > > In six days there has been zero discussion of this. Does that mean that > setup.exe maintainership is up for grabs? If so, I've got things that I > need to start doing with setup.exe, so I would be very interested in > taking responsibility for setup.exe. I have the time for it now as > well, and a project I am working on will really need setup.exe to be > more robust and reliable (such as not blindly and silently unpacking > files to mount points that do not point to physical disk locations). > > I'll start working on setup.exe next week and see how the maintainership > question develops.
The 6 days means that I'm in the middle of changing jobs. Starting April I have a new job with (hopefully) more personal time to do things like setup.exe. I don't consider the maintainership up for grabs - but please do start work on setup.exe, I'll happily review patches & we have 3 folk with commit access who can commit. Assuming your patches are of high quality, there is no reason that you can't get commit rights in the future too. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
