On 12.03.2012 01:04, Ken VanDine wrote: > The real problem we have with Gwibber is lack of contributors, we only > have a few regular contributors all with other responsibilities. > Fortunately I get to do some work on Gwibber as part of my day job > working for Canonical, which is awesome. However, most of the work I > put into gwibber is in my spare time. None of the complaints I've seen > from people are unsolvable, but we need to have a plan and people to > work on it. My proposed solution: Put together a plan of what needs to > be done and do a call for volunteers to help work on it.
Well this is exactly my point. Really my post wasn't in any way trying to offend you. I love the minor fixes you did in Gwibber and I actually (more or less forced myself to) use Gwibber for a long time. I am just wondering why Canonical isn't pushing a little more effort into this? Or is this planned in the long run? As I pointed out before, it is not that easy to get started as a developer on Gwibber imo. Especially the Vala code isn't well documented..
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
