| 1 |
Just to preface this, I have no personal objections to this move at all. |
| 2 |
However, I think you should wait a bit more than 2 days for any possible |
| 3 |
objections/suggestions. Now, I'm not saying lets wait a month to make |
| 4 |
sure no one has anything different/better to say about it. But a wait of |
| 5 |
4-5 days does seem somewhat appropriate. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I could be wrong through :) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
--Todd |
| 10 |
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 11:11, rob holland wrote: |
| 11 |
> All, |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Unless anyone has strong objects with us using media-music for now, I think |
| 14 |
> we should go ahead. Surely reducing the amount of packages in media-sound |
| 15 |
> has to be a good thing? Media-music might not be perfect but its still a |
| 16 |
> step in the right direction. Rather than us spending the next few months |
| 17 |
> pondering on the perfect name.. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> We can always change it later. Like I say, I think media-music is better |
| 20 |
> than media-sound for things we've said we're going to move. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Unless anyone voices a strong objection (and backs it up ;) in the next two |
| 23 |
> days we'll go ahead with the move using media-music. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> rob |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> -- |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> robh@g.o / robh:irc.freenode.net |
Archives