On Saturday 26 February 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 02:54:09PM CET:
> > Fine with me. This is the additional squash-in -- on the top of the old
> > one, since I had already commited that locally :-(
>
> Don't worry, I do such junk commits all t
Update: I've written to John to ask about copyright assignment, but
discovered in the mean time that there are one or two other authors to
talk to. I will see what John says first before considering how to
proceed.
I have also butchered the current version of latexmk to remove all the
functionalit
By the way, before getting all excited about programming, maybe I
could just write some additional documentation for automake
recommending the use of latexmk and giving an example Makefile.am
fragment?
Hi Reuben,
* Reuben Thomas wrote on Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 03:24:57PM CET:
> Update: I've written to John to ask about copyright assignment, but
> discovered in the mean time that there are one or two other authors to
> talk to. I will see what John says first before considering how to
> proceed.
I
On 28 February 2011 20:43, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Reuben,
>
>
> I'm not sure if I said it before; but I wouldn't be surprised if there
> is interest to let latexmk (continue to) exist independently from
> Automake.
That's what I was assuming.
> It's not even clear how big the benefit of a
