[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?
|
From: |
Alan Third |
|
Subject: |
Re: Should this package be included into the NS port? |
|
Date: |
Fri, 18 May 2018 19:50:10 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21) |
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 06:13:30PM -0400, George Plymale II wrote:
> Is there anyone else in particular that I should Cc for further
> discussion on this topic? I'm not sure who's presently in charge of the
> NS port. No rush or anything... I just would prefer for this not to go
> stale.
No, nobody else. I don’t think there’s officially anyone in charge of
the NS port, but in practice it’s probably me.
--
Alan Third
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, (continued)
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Alan Third, 2018/05/23
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/05/24
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Philipp Stephani, 2018/05/24
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Philipp Stephani, 2018/05/24
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/05/24
Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, George Plymale II, 2018/05/15
Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, George Plymale II, 2018/05/17
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?,
Alan Third <=
Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Nick Helm, 2018/05/19
Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, George Plymale II, 2018/05/29