On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Chip Childers > <[email protected]> wrote: >> IMO, no. I want the first issue resolved first (revert the code that >> shouldn't be in the repo). Then we can talk about accepting the >> donation proposal I assume is coming. >> >> But this is just my opinion. Anyone else? >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Chip >>> >>> Should we expedite IP clearance process and avoid having to revert commits? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Animesh >>> > > > I don't know that there is a 'expedite' option. Our history thus far > is that this doesn't happen rapidly. I think the fastest we can get > away with is likely a week - and that's assuming all of the planets > align, all paperwork is immediately signed, acknowledged, we have only > tailwinds, etc. Given that it is currently the 11th, I'm not even sure > that with the volume of problematic features that they'll even be > through IP Clearance by code freeze. > > --David >
These reverts are now blocking Chiradeep's refactoring effort / merge proposal. I'd suggest that not only should the reverts happen first, but that they happen soon please.
