W dniu 06.04.2014 09:57, Bernd Wachter pisze:
Filip Kłębczyk writes:
Sorry, but this sounds like, either it will be "our" (Jolla way) or we are
taking toys and are going to different closed sandbox to play.
I find it hard to correlate that with "lets talk about being more open". Lets
not pr
Filip Kłębczyk writes:
>>> Sorry, but this sounds like, either it will be "our" (Jolla way) or we are
>>> taking toys and are going to different closed sandbox to play.
>>
>> I find it hard to correlate that with "lets talk about being more open". Lets
>> not pre-judge.
>
> No one is pre-judging
W dniu 05.04.2014 13:37, David Greaves pisze:
So yes, Mer is *designed* to support internal builds and vendor-specific
modifications.
That's great as long as Mer is not one vendor and one company oriented.
Sorry, but this sounds like, either it will be "our" (Jolla way) or we are
taking toy
On 05/04/14 12:02, Filip Kłębczyk wrote:
> W dniu 05.04.2014 11:41, Thomas Perl pisze:
>> Personally, I see it more like “claiming maintainership”, if anything
>> - maintaining a set of well-maintained and packaged middleware
>> components in Mer that other projects can decide to use or not (the
>>
W dniu 05.04.2014 11:41, Thomas Perl pisze:
Personally, I see it more like “claiming maintainership”, if anything
- maintaining a set of well-maintained and packaged middleware
components in Mer that other projects can decide to use or not (the
alternative would be to have a private/downstream fo
On 05 Apr 2014, at 10:21, Thomas B. Rücker wrote:
> Reading this I can't help but wonder if Jolla now claims ownership of
> Mer/Nemo then. Even with fancy hat changing. Bringing this discussion up
> in a strictly Sailfish context implies this.
Personally, I see it more like “claiming maintainersh
