sycamoreone wrote (26 Jan 2016 22:03:00 GMT) : > sajolida: >> intrigeri: > I am also for keeping D separately. But the blueprint should document > the use-cases A, B, C, and E that Pidgin and its potential replacement > should address. And also the use-case D that it need not.
Yes. I see that it's been done already (with a new nomenclature), cool! >>> > I don't know of any tool that provides D _and_ another one among A, >>> > B and C. So for the moment, I think that D should be solved separately. >> >> Exactly. > Yes. I'm glad we agree on dealing with D separatedly. Cheers! -- intrigeri _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
