On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote: > FTR: I refuse any discussion where people, already in the initial > statements, discuss each others merit and downfalls and whatnot. > > If you want to talk about technical stuff and/or propose a project plan, > start a new thread without all that destructive crap I will not waste > any more time than this mail about.
That's exactly what I did; On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:19 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > Is anyone seeing an issue of concern about stability on 2.4.x branch? > > Has anyone else looked at Jim's proposed fixes for xcode 9 building > under maintainer mode? A couple-line quick fix to configure.in, that > anyone on OS/X should be able to validate in minutes. The same fix > is already present on APR's branches, which I will tag as well. > > I'll proceed to tag 2.5.0, and 2.4.29 after a couple hour comment > period, so that the many proposed enhancements can be examined > by alpha testers and our quick adopters of 2.4.28 can be back on track > by early next week. That should simplify getting some of the more > complex patches backported as necessary, or move us forward > in any case. There was no animus or personality involved in this statement. Follow the thread to find out where it "broke" and who broke it. I will kill this thread; I should have limited it to responding that our ruleset inhibits vetoes of tags and releases; then a second fresh thread not to anyone's comment in particular explaining the basis of 2.5.0-alpha. My bad, I apologize for mixing the two, and will more carefully avoid this in the future.
