8 Aug
2009
8 Aug
'09
6:13 p.m.
On Saturday 08 August 2009 16:04:43 you wrote:
On 08/09/2009 06:10 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
I also have a little hickory stick for application as needed.
Whip it good, dana nana nah!
Raymond
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:49:08 Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
If that was your intention then yes.
So now you are the official watchdog of the improvisor code? If they
step out of line again you will be right there to get them back on track
even if you have to force the issue with your cape and a trusty spork at
your side?
On 08/09/2009 05:44 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
Yeah, the ground shakes and you get all frightened, but not much happens,
yet!
The Impro-Visor code is out and on SF, so it worked, didn't it. On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
> Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide
> that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required
> for making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
> forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended
> result of your efforts?
Perhaps his stated intention was to fork but his point is that at this
point at least, no fork exists? Perhaps at this point, all that exists
is the original binary and a decompiled version of the source? (Along
with new text documents? Guessing here from the threads, not from
checking either of the projects.)
So this is a pre fork or a split or a bend but not an outright fork?
IMO, it's so close to a fork as to be almost negligible.
It's all the ground work in place but none of the follow through.
It's like a "psyche" intended to frighten the recipient without actually
doing anything specific?