now now, bickering won't help. so a patch wasn't applied. I can't speak to it either way, but I think that aaron should at least make a statement as to why, and if there wasn't a good reason for it's not being applied, either technical, or timewise, he should issue an apology, but since I'm not him, I don't know the reasons, and I can't say what he should do. Ultimately though, I think there needs to be a reunification of the packman development branches, pacman will fall prey to the same pitfalls as apt and rpm, and the same pitfalls as atom and rss as well. there should be no separation if it can be avoided, and as far as I can tell, it's up to aaron to make the first step and explain what he can. on an aside, I think the pacman development would be much smoother and more forward thinking if developers could get CVS access so that we don't have this same issue with a single maintainer holding all the strings in the future. Aaron, I hope you'll send a reply to this when you get back from whatever holiday you're celebrating. On 1/1/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2007/1/1, VMiklos <vmiklos@frugalware.org>:
feel free to gime some <i don't know what Aaron wishes> to Aaron to get our patches applied. as we already stated in several mails, we've lost our motivation
Ehm, correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK only one of your patch was not applied.
anyway, happy new year to all pacman{,-g2} hackers ;)
Happy new year for all! :) Let it be even more productive!
-- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич) _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev