STABLE version -- 4.2.10.171

[rch]

What's the problem with releasing its patch code then if its not needed? If you don't want it, doesn't automatically mean others don't want it.

Also, if no one's doing it, it doesn't mean you/we shouldn't do it.
I have already stated a multiple times that I am down to maintaining it, as well as naming the fork 'Lite' as a matter of fact.

Please stop insisting you have the most ideal opinion.

Interestingly, you somehow know for a fact a lot more people use Direct write over advanced bookmarks (care to share how you know that?) and then you say I'm insisting I have the most ideal opinion.

I'm merely offering an opinion as an end user, just like you, if you don't like it, you can disagree.

You are right, if no-one else is doing it, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. But that relies on firstly whether it can be done and it also gives you a clue that others might not be doing it for a valid reason. If they can do it, happy days, but if not, what then?

---

Because I've looked into their strances on DirectWrite looking for a browser???

Also, it's not about SOLVING A PROBLEM. It's about there being a workload that gets unreasonable for three people. This isn't about JUST DirectWrite why I keep suggesting more volunteers. At this rate, them not accepting help makes me think they have something in their code they want to HIDE despite it clearly being too much for the three of them.

From what I understand from the devs replies, it is about solving two distinct issues, if they can be sorted, the rest of the browser is not a problem.

They seem quite set on not accepting outside help so I don't think it'll do much good to keep repeating the point unless they first show a willingness to change that stance, and they haven't so far.

You raise an interesting point about the code, and I've seen people elsewhere throw a few accusations Cent's way. So far, they are unfounded.