Author: intrigeri Date: To: The Tails public development discussion list Subject: Re: [Tails-dev] Requirements for a Pidgin replacement
sycamoreone wrote (26 Jan 2016 22:03:00 GMT) : > sajolida:
>> intrigeri:
> I am also for keeping D separately. But the blueprint should document
> the use-cases A, B, C, and E that Pidgin and its potential replacement
> should address. And also the use-case D that it need not.
Yes. I see that it's been done already (with a new
nomenclature), cool!
>>> > I don't know of any tool that provides D _and_ another one among A,
>>> > B and C. So for the moment, I think that D should be solved separately.
>>
>> Exactly. > Yes.
