<div dir="ltr">On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Frank Loeffler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:knarf@cct.lsu.edu" target="_blank">knarf@cct.lsu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 03:53:46PM +0200, Ian Hinder wrote:<br>
> > Note that this technically means proposing it for the ET, and making sure that the usual requirements are met.<br>
><br>
> Actually, no, it doesn't. Moving it to CactusNumerical means adding it to Cactus, not to the ET. We would not add it to the ET thornlist.<br>
<br>
</span>It doesn't mean proposing it for the ET, but I imagine we should have<br>
similar ideals for Cactus as well, if not the same. Moving a thorn into<br>
a Cactus arrangement means that we "officially" maintain it. We cannot<br>
allow just any thorn in. Of course, this isn't anything against<br>
TensorTypes - just a general statement.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I have added TensorTypes to the CactusNumerical arrangement and switched its license to LGPL. </div></div></div></div>