Re: Experiment: poll on "switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?"
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Experiment: poll on "switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?"
- From: Steve Greenland <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 11:47:05 -0600
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20060102174705.GA1181@moregruel.net>
- Mail-followup-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Reply-to: Steve Greenland <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20051223175437.GB26867@localhost.localdomain>
- References: <20051221201415.GB13238@A-Eskwadraat.nl> <20051221204944.GE18029@zewt.org> <E1EpCB0-0005Jsfirstname.lastname@example.org> <20051222054314.GB6455@localhost.localdomain> <20051222183959.GD14736@aquarium.takhisis.invalid> <20051223024040.GC7358@localhost.localdomain> <20051223085918.GB19685@aquarium.takhisis.invalid> <20051223175437.GB26867@localhost.localdomain>
On 23-Dec-05, 11:54 (CST), Anthony Towns <email@example.com> wrote:
> The size of base matters a little, but it's not an "every byte is
> sacred" situation.
> Cheers, aj (base maintainer, for those playing along at home)
So, it seems that so far as Stefano (vim maintainer) and I (nvi
maintainer) are concerned, you and Joey get to make the call on this. Since
Joey initiated this thread, I think we can assume he's in favor of
the change. How say you?
If you agree with the change, do Stefano and I need to do anything
other than swap vi alternative priorities and swap important<->optional
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net