-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'd actually love to. As long as I'm the man behind the box I'll keep patching with a nudge your direction. :-)
Jesse Kuhnert wrote: > 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: > 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] >>>>>> >>> - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEEOiZaCoPKRow/gARAjV4AKCJLWCRD7pt2UBA9jtefOHVV6+/5ACffq2F hH7pNflinqxkHF+HdNYR0jA= =Md/p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
