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.

I'm glad we agree on dealing with D separatedly.

Cheers!
--
intrigeri