On 2010-06-28 17:57, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > Hi Doğacan, > > So your proposition is to combine (a) and (b) then? That’s fine by me, > so long as there are no objections from others. I can still move forward > with , (e) and (g) then...
No objections from me - but IMHO to satisfy the legal minds you still need to produce a patch and attach to an issue with the "Grant to ASF" checkbox marked... (Also, I always shudder when I imagine a massive merge failing ... but that's probably a leftover from my CVS days when a failed merge would leave a completely broken tree.. ah, well, good luck :) ). -- Best regards, Andrzej Bialecki <>< ___. ___ ___ ___ _ _ __________________________________ [__ || __|__/|__||\/| Information Retrieval, Semantic Web ___|||__|| \| || | Embedded Unix, System Integration http://www.sigram.com Contact: info at sigram dot com
