On 14/04/12 20:32 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 04:57:29 PM Tom Callaway wrote:
A bundling exception for boost within Passenger was granted, due to the
intrusive nature of the forked changes, the efforts of the maintainer to
merge as many of them as possible into t
On Saturday, April 14, 2012 03:11:46 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
> No need for this to be mutually exclusive, unless one (or both) of you
> are averse to being comaintainers?
>
I'm objecting based on the matters of principle and due process.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
--
Systems Architect, Kol
On 04/14/2012 02:32 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 04:57:29 PM Tom Callaway wrote:
A bundling exception for boost within Passenger was granted, due to the
intrusive nature of the forked changes, the efforts of the maintainer to
merge as many of them as possible into th
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 04:57:29 PM Tom Callaway wrote:
> A bundling exception for boost within Passenger was granted, due to the
> intrusive nature of the forked changes, the efforts of the maintainer to
> merge as many of them as possible into the upstream boost source tree,
> and the visible
