[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into
From: |
c. |
Subject: |
Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:55:43 +0100 |
On 17 Jan 2014, at 13:18, Carnë Draug <address@hidden> wrote:
>> OK, I'm very glad we agree 100% on this part.
>>
>> So if a package is useful and maintained, do
>> you think we should care about how many functions
>> it contains?
>
> No.
Sorry I think I had misunderstood your statement in this message,
too many negations got me confused ;)
So you do agree that small packages are not a problem (or at least not your
problem)
if they have a maintainer, right?
How to rearrange functions in unmaintained packes is a different issue, then.
c.
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/27
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/29
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, Thomas Weber, 2014/01/29
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/29
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, Thomas Weber, 2014/01/23
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/24
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/23
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core,
c. <=
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, Carnë Draug, 2014/01/17