man, 20 07 2009 kl. 16:28 -0500, skrev Carlo de Falco:
On 20 Jul 2009, at 15:00, Thomas Weber wrote:
The reality is that most small packages are maintained by nobody.
That's
the reason why they stay small.
I don't object reorganizing orphaned functions in a way that is more
easy
man, 20 07 2009 kl. 08:02 -0500, skrev Carlo de Falco:
I also believe this approach is more consistent with the packaging
system phylosophy:
In the near future (I should have finished doing this long time ago,
sorry for my delay Søren ;) ) we expect to move to a release system
where each
On 19 Jul 2009, at 15:23, Thomas Weber wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 09:12:06PM +0200, Søren Hauberg wrote:
søn, 19 07 2009 kl. 19:44 +0200, skrev Thomas Weber:
are there objections against moving lauchli.m from special-matrix
into
miscellaneous and eliminating the (then empty)
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 08:02:24AM -0500, Carlo de Falco wrote:
On 19 Jul 2009, at 15:23, Thomas Weber wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 09:12:06PM +0200, Søren Hauberg wrote:
søn, 19 07 2009 kl. 19:44 +0200, skrev Thomas Weber:
are there objections against moving lauchli.m from special-matrix
On 20 Jul 2009, at 15:00, Thomas Weber wrote:
The reality is that most small packages are maintained by nobody.
That's
the reason why they stay small.
I don't object reorganizing orphaned functions in a way that is more
easy to maintain,
I just don't think it is a good idea to put
Hi,
are there objections against moving lauchli.m from special-matrix into
miscellaneous and eliminating the (then empty) special-matrix package?
Thomas
--
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
This is
søn, 19 07 2009 kl. 19:44 +0200, skrev Thomas Weber:
are there objections against moving lauchli.m from special-matrix into
miscellaneous and eliminating the (then empty) special-matrix package?
I don't have any objections to moving this function elsewhere, but
perhaps someone else does?
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 09:12:06PM +0200, Søren Hauberg wrote:
søn, 19 07 2009 kl. 19:44 +0200, skrev Thomas Weber:
are there objections against moving lauchli.m from special-matrix into
miscellaneous and eliminating the (then empty) special-matrix package?
I don't have any objections to
