| 1 |
On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:48:11 -0400 |
| 2 |
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=155 |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Not for the versions in the tree they don't. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> You mean 0.5.3 released 2003-12-28. IMHO that borderlines a stale |
| 8 |
> package or one that should be punted. Or at min bumped since there has |
| 9 |
> been two releases since then. With the latest one being 0.5.5 |
| 10 |
> 2006-11-19. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Eh, perhaps the vim herd could take a look at that -- maybe someone |
| 13 |
should file a bug about it. Although perhaps the version in the tree |
| 14 |
works just fine, which is why no-one's noticed that there's an update. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> So is that app really used? Does anyone care about? Sure looks like |
| 17 |
> not in both cases. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
'Twas added to the tree at user request. Given that Java's basically a |
| 20 |
dead language and only being used for legacy applications now, it's |
| 21 |
probably not necessary any more. But then, keeping at least one of the |
| 22 |
colliding app-vim/ packages around is probably a good idea if only to |
| 23 |
remind people why categories exist... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives