On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 10:20:48 +0100, Florent Becker wrote: > As long as we decide to maintain darcs-fastconvert and to advertise it > officially, I don't see what advantages there are to having > darcs-fastconvert included in darcs rather than separate.
There seems to be a consensus that darcs-fastconvert should at least officially be a darcs product: it's what Ganesh suggested when Petr first wrote it as a darcs patch, and what I heartily +1ed. We may have failed to actually act on this intention (it happens), but I think it was always there. > We certainly should have darcs-convert binaries for the platforms which > have darcs binaries now. We have to have it packaged in debian, and so on. Florian and Alexey, is this something you'd would be able to massage into your workflows. > Grumpily, Senilely and Manly yours, I could go either way myself, but as a matter of principle, if in doubt, we should err on the side of grumpiness. The problem with feature creep is that all of the features that creep in do so because they are good features... -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> For a faster response, try +44 (0)1273 64 2905 or xmpp:[email protected] (Jabber or Google Talk only)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
