Hi Kendy,
On 15/03/2022 10:45, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
You really don't have to assure me. I started programming 35 years
ago, I was there in the 80's and 90's, so I can compare with the
present.
If you were a professional developer 35 years ago?
Then you have to tell me how you can look so
Hi,
Thorsten Behrens wrote on 14/03/2022 21:20:
Caolán McNamara wrote:
I tend to agree. I don't think making it trivial to deattic something
by applying a set of superficial commits to a very large code base
which don't achieve meaningful change while f.e. unaddressed security
issues mount up,
Hi *,
Caolán McNamara wrote:
> I tend to agree. I don't think making it trivial to deattic something
> by applying a set of superficial commits to a very large code base
> which don't achieve meaningful change while f.e. unaddressed security
> issues mount up, creating a sort of zombie would be a
Hi Jan,
On 14/03/2022 19:43, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi píše v Po 14. 03. 2022 v 17:07 +0100:
I have to agree with you that the process seems to be too cumbersome
and
it would very likely lead to the end of the project, so may as well
delete it, or to forks that will never
hi Andreas,
On 14.03.22 18:36, Andreas Mantke wrote:
and with the proposal the Android Viewer had to be put the attic and
wouldn't currently get the chance to get out of this state (because only
one developer looking for it).
that's a bad example: the Android Viewer is in the core.git
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi píše v Po 14. 03. 2022 v 17:07 +0100:
> I have to agree with you that the process seems to be too cumbersome
> and
> it would very likely lead to the end of the project, so may as well
> delete it, or to forks that will never come back.
Interestingly when I've read the
Hi,
Andreas Mantke wrote on 14/03/2022 18:36:
and with the proposal the Android Viewer had to be put the attic and
wouldn't currently get the chance to get out of this state (because only
one developer looking for it).
Fair point. One could think of a way that the activity/nr of devs asked,
Hi Cor, all,
Am 14.03.22 um 17:34 schrieb Cor Nouws:
Hi Andras,
Andreas Mantke wrote on 13/03/2022 16:12:
the quintessence of he proposal would be that a project will at 99,9% or
more wouldn't get out of the attic state inside the TDF resources. The
barriers to de-attic a project and make it
On Mon, 2022-03-14 at 17:34 +0100, Cor Nouws wrote:
> For me the clear demands in the proposal are to prevent a situation
> where projects restart without a good change on success, which is IMO
> quite relevant for TDF's good name.
I tend to agree. I don't think making it trivial to deattic
Cor Nouws wrote on 14/03/2022 17:34:
Hi Andras,
Andreas Mantke wrote on 13/03/2022 16:12:
the quintessence of he proposal would be that a project will at 99,9% or
more wouldn't get out of the attic state inside the TDF resources. The
barriers to de-attic a project and make it an active
Hi Andras,
Andreas Mantke wrote on 13/03/2022 16:12:
the quintessence of he proposal would be that a project will at 99,9% or
more wouldn't get out of the attic state inside the TDF resources. The
barriers to de-attic a project and make it an active project inside TDF
are much higher than
Hi Andreas,
thanks for your feedback.
I have to agree with you that the process seems to be too cumbersome and
it would very likely lead to the end of the project, so may as well
delete it, or to forks that will never come back.
The point here is also to try to understand what the scope of
Am 08.03.22 um 22:54 schrieb Emiliano Vavassori:
Dear community members,
Following the discussion on the first revision of the "Attic"
proposal, posted here by Thorsten Behrens on December 17th, 2021,
gathering the input we received from the community (thanks for the
invaluable help provided by
Hi Emiliano,
On 08/03/2022 22:54, Emiliano Vavassori wrote:
Of course, we are available to further clarify the proposal, if needed,
and we eagerly await for your input on this following version.
Proposal seems reasonable.
This “attic” space will have, at minimum, the following
Dear community members,
Following the discussion on the first revision of the "Attic" proposal,
posted here by Thorsten Behrens on December 17th, 2021, gathering the
input we received from the community (thanks for the invaluable help
provided by everyone who participated!) and as anticipated
15 matches
Mail list logo
