Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 07:51:52AM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Sebastien Roy wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 07:17 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Sebastien Roy wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 06:54 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Edward
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 07:51:52AM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Sebastien Roy wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 07:17 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>
>>> Sebastien Roy wrote:
>>>
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 06:54 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Edward Shu wrote:
>
>> +1. I would
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think a child will be as easy to work with, if only because I'll
>>> constantly be doing merges.
>>>
>>
>> This seems like a fallacy. You only need to merge when you decide that
>> you want to base your software on a newer sn
James Carlson wrote:
Sebastien Roy wrote:
I'm merely providing my input. In the end, if you're leading this
project, then it's your decision. FWIW, I don't believe that the term
"consolidation" applies at all here, as consolidation applies that it's
one of the pieces of the WOS, the collect
Sebastien Roy wrote:
> I'm merely providing my input. In the end, if you're leading this
> project, then it's your decision. FWIW, I don't believe that the term
> "consolidation" applies at all here, as consolidation applies that it's
> one of the pieces of the WOS, the collection of consolidatio
Sebastien Roy wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 07:17 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Sebastien Roy wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 06:54 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Edward Shu wrote:
+1. I would like the package for the "community supported hardware"
will be self con
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 07:17 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Sebastien Roy wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 06:54 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> >
> >> Edward Shu wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1. I would like the package for the "community supported hardware"
> >>> will be self contained. That is,
I think the best way forward here is for me to populate a sample
workspace with perhaps Tadpole support revived and maybe one or two
drivers. (Perhaps the audiocs4281 driver, which would be new, as well.)
- Garrett
Steven Stallion wrote:
Sebastien Roy wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 06
Sebastien Roy wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 06:54 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> Edward Shu wrote:
>>> +1. I would like the package for the "community supported hardware"
>>> will be self contained. That is,
>>> ON tree is not necessary to build the package.
>> It would be nice, but we'll nee
Sebastien Roy wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 06:54 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Edward Shu wrote:
+1. I would like the package for the "community supported hardware"
will be self contained. That is,
ON tree is not necessary to build the package.
It would be nice, but we'll nee
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 06:54 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Edward Shu wrote:
> > +1. I would like the package for the "community supported hardware"
> > will be self contained. That is,
> > ON tree is not necessary to build the package.
>
> It would be nice, but we'll need the ON headers at le
Edward Shu wrote:
+1. I would like the package for the "community supported hardware"
will be self contained. That is,
ON tree is not necessary to build the package.
It would be nice, but we'll need the ON headers at least, I think.
-- Garrett
Garrett D'Amore:
Now that Sun has made off
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> Other examples of why a contributor agreement is important:
>
> Anyone who follows Freenode's #mercurial channel knows that they're
> going through a relicensing exercise at the moment, attempting to
> contact developers who contributed cod
13 matches
Mail list logo
