P.S. You're not going to pop out of a box are you Brian? I'd vote for you if you did ;)
On 3/9/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I had actually already decided that I should clarify what I'm thinking > before I saw this post.. > > Basically, I've got 0 invested in tapestry 3. So, there would be no > itch/economy/etc that would compelling enough to invest any inordinate > amount of time in it. > > That being said, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice if some of those old > issues were fixed. I don't have enough time to go through each one of them, > but if someone who does care about tap 3 comes forward, who has a trackable > history with tapestry and code that we can get a gauge on what they might be > doing then I wouldn't have a problem at least starting a vote to get them on > board for some more help :) > > Above all else I'd much prefer that Howard not have to deal with these > things. It seems like a waste of skills to have him doing those sorts of > things when he obviously excels at doing the more important (imho) > design/architecture/evolvement of the framework as a whole. If we need to > vote more developers on to the project let's identify who they are and try > to work something out. > > Does that sound fair? > > > On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > lol - pops out of a box somewhere... okay - that response was worth it > > for that part alone. > > > > Mind if I post to users asking version mindset? I'm still seeing 3.X > > questions being raised - if there's a substantial number, I'll work on > > keeping track of fixes for that so you can bulldoze ahead with the fun > > stuff. > > > > Jesse Kuhnert wrote: > > > Not by me. Unless someone makes a lot of noise about them at least. > > > > > > If people are still on 3.X and care enough about an issue then I hope > > they > > > will speak up. I'm trying to not "blindly" close any old issues, but > > ones I > > > know are definitely fixed in 4.0 > already and aren't worth anyone's > > time > > > spending too many brain cycles on for 3.x. > > > > > > That's how I feel at least :) Unless a tapestry 3 developer pops out > > of a > > > secret box somewhere I doubt it will be getting a lot of heavy bugfix > > > development... > > > > > > jesse > > > On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jesse - > > > > > > I know you're a non-3.X 'er, but for the issues written against 3.0and > > > fixed in 4.1 - are the fixes getting back ported where they can? > > > > > > Brian > > >> > > - --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > >> > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) > > > > iD8DBQFEEON+aCoPKRow/gARAuteAJ9xExOTULK5/YLpL7MEYUfsNS0KiACeM4V4 > > 6ob3fdKvwMstrt/ocw9TSLU= > > =KPPt > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
