On 17-03-06 11:55:27, Efraim Flashner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:01:23PM +, ng0 wrote:
> > On 17-03-01 16:58:41, ng0 wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I already fixed some of the open issues with our package of 'mc'.
> > >
> > > I think people will expect features to just work and not
On 17-03-01 17:01:23, ng0 wrote:
> On 17-03-01 16:58:41, ng0 wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I already fixed some of the open issues with our package of 'mc'.
> >
> > I think people will expect features to just work and not being broken
> > (as they are right now).
> > My personal opinion ignored, how do
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:01:23PM +, ng0 wrote:
> On 17-03-01 16:58:41, ng0 wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I already fixed some of the open issues with our package of 'mc'.
> >
> > I think people will expect features to just work and not being broken
> > (as they are right now).
> > My personal
On 17-03-01 16:58:41, ng0 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I already fixed some of the open issues with our package of 'mc'.
>
> I think people will expect features to just work and not being broken
> (as they are right now).
> My personal opinion ignored, how do you want to proceed? The vim way
> where we have
Hi,
I already fixed some of the open issues with our package of 'mc'.
I think people will expect features to just work and not being broken
(as they are right now).
My personal opinion ignored, how do you want to proceed? The vim way
where we have $package (basic, as small as it gets) and
