El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2014, Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> escribió: >> No, it's really not unfair at all. You are basically saying Andrew is >> doing a crappy job as a maintainer On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia <guille.rodriguez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > No, I am definitely NOT saying that, nothing even close. Please don't put > your words in my mouth, thank you. Of course you are saying that. Why else would you even bring up the issue of finding a "competent successor" which implies that Andrew is no longer interested in GNU Classpath and neglecting its maintenance? El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2014, Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> escribió: >> Once you answer the hypothetical question *who* should >> be the successor, you will understand why. On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia <guille.rodriguez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I see, so if I don't have the answer, the question makes no sense. Ok. You didn't even try to answer the question, did you? If Andrew actually needed a "competent successor" (he doesn't), what is required of that person? The person needs to be an active developer, needs to understand GNU Classpath well, and has to have support from people who actually developed the project, right? Are you able to make an educated guess who actually meets that criteria? - Pekka
