Code review comment for lp:~jelmer/bzr-gtk/split-out-olive

Losing the ability to help out properly is something most volunteers
encounter I think (at least the ones not moving on to a career in OS
development). I'm happy as it is that I'm able to use my python + numpy
dataprocessing abilities to sort through the more massive datasets I
have to work with now.
All the issues with bzr-gtk trying to stay near the bullseye with a fast
moving target like bzr or integration with other components such as
seahorse are harder to work on for people with less time. Adding polish
to Olive is more for me :) I really should get around to removing that
non-functioning and confusing history mode in Olive :/ Or figure out how
to call up old versions of documents as shown in the history file list.
:P (Who am I kidding, figuring out how LP works nowadays would be the
first hurdle :D).

Regards,
Jasper

On 31/05/10 23:45, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> Hey Jasper,
>
> On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 21:10 +0000, Jasper Groenewegen wrote:
>> Review: Approve I think the visibility of Olive is improved when split
>> out. As my focus was on Olive related development (you know, back in
>> the day before I worked a fulltime job) I wouldn't mind receiving
>> Olive related bugreports. Will the new olive project be maintained by
>> the bzr-gtk maintainers group? I would hope so.
> Ah, I was wondering what had happened to you. :-) The same thing
> happened to me, which is one of the reasons why I haven't had as much
> time to spend on bzr-gtk as I used to.
>
> I hope there will be some overlap between developers like there is
> overlap between the qbzr and bzr-explorer developers, but it doesn't
> necessarily have to be the same group of people.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jelmer