Actually, it's also out of line. If we have a vote in CVS, or even another vote present, you really shouldn't go instigating more confusing or conflicting votes to track, especially if it's not your proposal or patch.
And no, we haven't settled abstract or concrete contracts for the time scale, so no, it's hard to pick a name.
The votes are in status. Let's keep discussion on list and the tally in STATUS. STATUS cannot continue to be a soapbox, and remain an effective summary of where the project is at. If someone wants to start tracking a discussion in another cvs file (preferably the apr site or pmc repository, rather than our code repositories), that's fine by me.
Can we please end this sub-thread?
Bill
At 01:47 PM 7/12/2002, David Reid wrote:
Agreed, it's premature.
david
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 11:36:06AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > > Let's try to get a consensus. This is my proposal. There are other > > proposals like it, but this one is mine. Please restrict discussion > > to this proposal. > > What is this for? > > I don't think we've settled whether we want an abstract or > concrete implementation to represent time. > > Until we settle that, I believe this is premature. -- justin
