search for: subgoals

Oh, well, I don't actually have any objection to the patch (I'm not sure if Oscar does) or work in this direction. (So apologies for hijacking, it's just I wanted to back up the sentiment that Oscar expressed initially.) I'm honestly just trying to understand why the engineering focus is where it is, and wonders if anyone has put any thought into supporting our own (or possibly

On Jul 31, 2013 10:16 AM, "Stephen Lin" <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > > Oh, well, I don't actually have any objection to the patch (I'm not > sure if Oscar does) or work in this direction. (So apologies for > hijacking, it's just I wanted to back up the sentiment that Oscar > expressed initially.) > > I'm honestly just trying to

I've just received an email from a colleague who told me to put my money where my mouth is .... So here it is - I'm offering $500 and looking for other people to add to this bounty. We can get a group of people putting matching funds up to finalize the scope of the first Open Source Asterisk / Wave conference call integration robot bounty but if you have any other suggestions feel free

This thread is odd to me. It seems that the gist of your guys' argument is that you don't know if we will ever get full support, therefore we don't welcome progress towards that (very useful) goal/feature. If the specific proposal doesn't make make sense from a design standpoint, that's one thing, but saying we shouldn't take it because of licensing issues with MFC or

> Quite the contrary, knowing that Clang's C++ ABI is completely > incompatible with MS is a maintenance *simplification*. Yes, for example, as explained by Bjarne once, incompatible name mangling schemes for ABIs that are not guaranteed to be 100% binary compatible is a _feature_, not a bug, since it prevents anyone from even beginning to develop a workflow that relies upon linking