On 02/06/11 09:59, Jim Meyering wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > Giving an ultimatum like that
Hi Jim, et al., I really was not intending it as an "ultimatum". Rather, it was on (bad?) advice from one of the primary gnulib maintainers on which I was acting. > .... If you get desperate, you can always repost, > telling any who have not responded that you interpret their silence as > acceptance, and giving them, say, one day more. That is precisely what I thought I was doing. I would very much like to use libposix in the two projects I maintain. I have been trying to get buyoff on the exact form for months. Though untrue, it seemed clear that the gnulib-tool changes were ironed out. I was wrong. I missed an exchange back in October and the upshot was never incorporated into the libposix branch. Oops. But given the advice that a quick back-out is acceptable in case of problems, it seemed going ahead was not lethal. Anyway, This message was from Thursday: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2011-02/msg00044.html I pushed on Saturday and I'll just never push again without utterly explicit approval. No more "repost, telling any ..." stuff. > ...... In the future, you can help forestall objections or delays > by ensuring that two or three projects do indeed bootstrap when using > your proposed changes. My two projects did. They are obviously not projects as intimately intertwined with gnulib machinery as are m4 or emacs. I'll pull a copy of the m4 sources and use it as a sanity check. (To be explicit, sharutils, autogen and libposix itself all used gnulib-tool successfully. This proved to be insufficient.)
