On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Robert Newson <robert.new...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 trillion.
Does that mean the motion passes? I could see nay-votes having a hard time coming back from down 1 trillion. > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Adam Kocoloski <kocol...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Robert Newson <robert.new...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> 1.0.2 now has fixes for several serious issues. Unless there's another >>>>> known one of sufficient severity I think we should get 1.0.2 as soon >>>>> as we can. Can some other folks chime in with their take please? >>>>> >>>>> B. >>>> I'm just asking for 1 or 2 days, that's not to much. >>>> >>>> Until there are no blocker, we can then release. I don't see any >>>> reason to not do that. There have been so many fixes in 2 last week, >>>> that I think it could be good to take some time to test against our >>>> data. I even didn't have time to test your yesterday patch against my >>>> data where it was failling. >>>> >>>> - benoit >>> >>> I'll leave it up to Paul, but the vote itself has a multi-day window, so in >>> my opinion we can continue testing the new fixes during the voting. Best, >>> >>> Adam >> >> For the record I'd really like to get 1.0.2 out there and just push >> any new bugs into a 1.0.3 release. If no one objects in the next >> couple hours I'll remake those tarballs and start this party over >> tonight. >> >
