Actually, for the sake of procedure, the vote will remain open until 20000UTC Feb 13, as per the original call. As it stands now, however, Sim’s -1 represents a veto.
Greg. On Feb 12, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Greg Trasuk <tras...@stratuscom.com> wrote: > > OK, fair enough. I’ll close this issue and open another one that just makes > sure the jars aren’t in the source distribution (that _is_ an Apache > requirement) without adding Ivy. > > In general, though, as we move to the build structure discussion, are you OK > with using dependency management. I’m not big on putting other people’s > software distributions into our source repository, especially if we’re going > to see more dependencies as time goes on. > > Cheers, > > Greg. > > On Feb 12, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Simon IJskes - QCG <si...@qcg.nl> wrote: > >> On 12-02-14 15:56, Greg Trasuk wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sim, >>> >>> -1 votes need to have an explanation, for the archives. >> >> If it is so important to revise the build system, to me it is not, but you >> care a lot about it, we should view the problem on a wider scope. Why not >> put the effort in, to revise our whole build system? >> I think it is important not just change things for no reason, as this is how >> i view the migration to ivy. I know ivy, i use ivy, but i cannot see this as >> a improvement to river. >> >> Let me know if this is unclear to you, or that you do not agree with me. The >> one is solvable the other isnt. >> >> Gr. Simon >> >> >> -- >> QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl >> Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397 >
