> On Jun 21, 2016, at 10:58 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 7:39 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > > Just a reminder for those still testing and/or waiting to cast > > a vote: One cannot veto a release and even tho OtherBill has > > voted a someway bi-polar -1, my intent is to, assuming the required > > 3 or more (binding) +1s, release this despite the diatribe > > below. > > My mental state, really, Jim? Well, now you know why I sat on the > fence deciding whether to not vote, and let you eat the eggs of the > users affected, or vote -1. It took until you re-rolled without any > feedback for me to get off the fence in defense of those users who > are adversely impacted by your short-sightedness. >
bi-polar *obviously* referred to the *vote*, as syntax and grammar make clear. > > >> > >> Given the lengths Jens Schleusener needed to go through to diagnose > >> this during the original release candidate vote, and the availability of > >> the patch prior to this tag to fix the RM's own defect (demonstrated > >> easily with any --enable-modules of few or none, after this community > >> went to great lengths to re-think the appropriate categorization of all > >> modules under all/most/few schema) this candidate is clearly not > >> ready for prime time. > >> > >> In all other respects, I see no significant regressions or new issues. > >> Thanks for RM'ing (2x now)! > >> > >> > > > >
