[gfsd]Re: request for new mailing list: bug-cppi

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

I just discovered this message in my new-gnu folder.  It looks like RMS
never replied whether it was ok to keep the two programs separate, and
then it got lost in the shuffle.

RMS, are you ok with keeping cppi and indent two separate programs?

If so, I'll do the normal new-gnu things for cppi, as well as set up
bug-cppi as Jim requested.

Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
> "Bradley M. Kuhn" <address@hidden> wrote:
> | Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
> |
> | > RMS already knows about and approved it.  See below.
> | > The copyright assignment is on file, too.
> |
> | The question is, though, should we make it part of indent (as RMS suggests),
> | and have bug-cppi and bug-indent go to the same place?
> |
> | Could you perhaps coordinate with the maintainer of indent to both maintain
> | your parts, and share the job with the overall indent maintainer?
>
> I'd rather keep cppi separate.  I barely have the time to prepare for
> the release, so the hassles/time required to integrate it into another
> package would be prohibitive for me.

pgps5BKDUGC6O.pgp
Description: PGP signature