---
This time I'm experimenting with the annotate function.

 Nate | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
 create mode 100644 Nate

diff --git a/Nate b/Nate
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..66cb3d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Nate
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+I have successfully used git send-email!
[message trimmed]

---
 Nate | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
 create mode 100644 Nate

diff --git a/Nate b/Nate
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..66cb3d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Nate
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+I have successfully used git send-email!
-- 
2.34.1
[message trimmed]

---
 Nate | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
 create mode 100644 Nate

diff --git a/Nate b/Nate
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6d0ecfd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Nate
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+I'm about to try git send-email
-- 
2.34.1
[message trimmed]

> Their business model is entirely obsolete. I want them to close their
> doors for good. Publish papers on your institution's website.

But I thought in an earlier email someone pointed out that this paper
is available on the authors' lab's website?

On Sat Nov 20, 2021 at 3:46 AM EST, Adolfo Santiago wrote:
> >I hope the message reaches the academic world.
>
> To be honest, this message has been sent to the academic world for
> years (if not decades).
>
> It should be already this way.

Most preprints in my field, like this paper, are available on author's
websites or HTML versions are accessible on pubmed. I don't mind
journals having some paywall on final products--they're maintaining
publishing houses, employing editors, maintaining websites, adding
additional content, etc. Do we want them to move to an ad-driven
business model or something else where they instead pay for their

When pushing to my sr.ht repo: 

	~nsg/osprey

The remote says:

	remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (2264/2264), completed with 16 local objects.
	remote: Error submitting build job: Payment is required. Set up billing at https://meta.sr.ht/billing/initial

When trying to submit a build manifest manually on
https://builds.sr.ht/submit, the page says:

"You must have a paid sourcehut account to submit jobs to builds.sr.ht.
Financial aid is available for users who need it."

> This would be useful for less computer literate users as well, I think
> having a simple icon like [0] next to the .. would be a nice help for
> everyone.

It's probably worth asking whether browsing a source code tree is
something someone who isn't very computer literate will do often. My
guess is that browsing a source code tree assumes some sort of facility
with using a computer. If they're browsing the source tree to learn
more, then teaching them that '..' means "cd up the directory tree" is a
good opportunity to learn something new imo.

Also, '..' means go up a directory in windows batch and powershell too.

> Sorry about that, I had actually moved the minimum go version to 1.16,
> but I had forgotten to reflect that in both the README and CHANGELOG.
> Are you able to move to the newer Go version to resolve the build error
> you are seeing?

Thanks for getting back to me, and for Beagles! No worries at all.  I'm
using the go toolchain from the Fedora 33 stock repository, which is
1.15. I imagine it'll get an upgrade with the release of Fedora 34 in a
few weeks, and I can wait until then to update to the latest bits (I
don't do enough go programming to want to maintain my own version of the
toolchain).

Best,
Nate

Thanks for Beagles, been enjoying using it.

Just wanted to share this error I've encountered building the project:

```
➜  beagles git:(main) make
go build   -ldflags="-X 'main.Version=0.2.0'"  -o beagles
../../go/pkg/mod/git.sr.ht/~adnano/go-gemini@v0.1.22/fs.go:8:2: package io/fs is not in GOROOT (/usr/lib/golang/src/io/fs)
make: *** [Makefile:22: beagles] Error 1
```

I think this has to do with the gemini package. Looks like others have
encountered something similar in other packages, too, e.g.

Fedora Rawhide is now Fedora 34, and the current supported (by Fedora)
releases are Fedora 33 and 32. 31 and 30 are unsupported.
---
I emailed Timothée Floure a few days ago and mentioned that it appeared
the Fedora images had been updated but the documentation had not been.
He suggested I send a patch--here it is.

I removed Fedora 31/30 rather than just adding 34/33 because 31/30 are
unsupported by Fedora already. See:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/End_of_life

 builds.sr.ht/compatibility.md | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
[message trimmed]