On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Thomas S Hatch <thatch45@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Ray Rashif <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 19/11/11 19:44, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
I have a lot of regret doing this, and I have been working hard to find the time to keep up with my TU duties, but every day I have less and less
time
because work is continually ramping up, and what free time I have left ends up going to Salt (http://saltstack.org).
So, very sadly, I need to resign from my position as an Arch Linux TU. I hope I can be of assistance to Arch in the future and I am still
On 21 November 2011 00:10, Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl> wrote: planning
on maintaining the Varch project: https://github.com/thatch45/varch
So with deep regret, I must resign my brief stint as a TU, it was fun, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity, but it is very unfair of me to not be maintaining my packages.
Thanks
-Thomas S Hatch
Sad to see you leave, good luck with Salt!
-- Jelle van der Waa
One awesome person less :(
Good luck with everything else!
-- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Thanks everyone, maybe sometime in the future things will clear up enough for me to come back, but not at the rate things are going now. Life has changed so much since I joined Arch!
Keep making the worlds best Linux Distro better!
-Thomas S Hatch
Can somebody enlighten me what happened with this ML discussion? http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-November/thread.html shows a bit of a mess but it doesn't explain why [aur-general] TU Resignation Thomas S Hatch http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-November/016543.html looks identical to the previous message: [aur-general] Developer / TU key signing, first master key available Thomas Bächler http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-November/016540.html What's even more baffling is that the next 2 messages: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-November/016544.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-November/016546.html look identical too (the sender and date looks OK). I'm not well-versed in the ML-foo so please rename this thread / start a new one if you think it's more appropriate.