Hi guys,
2010/5/10 Joep Suijs <[email protected]> > Well... maybe 'jallib' is not the right name for this group then ;) > > But serious: if you take the name 'jallib' as a reference, you're > right. We had the same discussion about jaluino at the time and IMO, > at least in retrospect it was the wrong descission to create a separte > group for this. Of course there was a lot of attention for the project > during development (time invested, messages sent, commits), but at > it's current level it could fit in this group without a problem. > Indeed. It occurs often when people at jaluino needs to post here, or at least follow things happening here in order to keep up-to-date. I think now it's too late... > Advantage of sharing a group is a broader support and less deviation. > Same arguments could be applies to the lcd_interface and catpad_mw > project, which don't have the sole target to create libraries. > You're right here too ! > > IIRC only you and me stated our opinion on this matter, but if the > general opinion is jat does not belong here, I'll move it away... > As for me, I don't have problems if jat (whatever the name) stays here. Alternative is to use a different SVN repository but keep this group. Cheers, Seb -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
