On 4 September 2015 at 01:38, Ricordisamoa ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org wrote:
Il 04/09/2015 01:24, Brandon Harris ha scritto:
On Sep 3, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Ricordisamoaricordisamoa@openmailbox.org wrote:
I appreciate the acknowledgement of failure.
I don't think that's what was said at all. You may wish tore-read all of this.
Putting "active development" on hold when the software is little used in production and even some features a MVP should have had are missing, really sounds like a failure to me, although Danny has been very good at not making it sound like it. "To better address the needs of our core contributors", "we shift the team's focus to these other priorities", "communities that are excited about Flow discussions will be able to use it"
It read to me and many others like a fairly standard set of euphemisms for when a project is killed but nobody wants to say "killed". Perhaps we're all reading it wrong.
So, non-euphemistically: could someone please detail what, precisely, is and is not the level of resource commitment to Flow? (And how it compares to e.g. the level of resource commitment to LQT.)
- d.