Acknowledged with a +1. Pedro.
--- On Thu, 11/17/11, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> wrote: ... > On 11/17/11 5:41 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > > 2011/11/17 Jürgen Schmidt<jogischm...@googlemail.com>: > >> On 11/17/11 4:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > >>> > >>> Committed as revision 1203218. > >>> > >>> Thank you very much for your contribution! > >>> > >> > >> i very much appreciate that we accept and > integrate everything at the > >> moment. But should we maybe a little bit more > careful? And should we focus > >> more on our main common goal to provide a stable > version asap? > >> > >> I thought we would have agreed to only make the > code base Apache conform and > >> work on replacements for license critical things. > We are now in a phase > >> where we integrate many patches from Issuezilla > that are not yet integrated > >> for specific reasons (maybe not reviewed, not > complete, too bad etc.). We > >> integrate things without real testing the changes. > I am not sure if we > >> should do that at the moment. > >> > >> What do others think about it? > >> > > > > Maybe hold back changes that are not related to IP > cleanup. Then, > > once the IP review is done, then we might branch to > stabilize the 3.4 > > release and allow other patches to the > trunk. Would that work? I > > don't think we want to slow down patches for > long. That was a > > criticism of the legacy project. But for the > next few weeks we really > > should concentrate on IP review. > > > exactly, i simply wanted to focus on our most important > goal to provide a stable Apache conform release. And > every helping hand here is very much appreciated. > > And of course we will be very open for bugfix patches and > even other contributions that help us to bring the project > forward. > > Don't get me wrong here!!! > > It is perfectly ok, if we accept non critical patches that > help to bring new committers on board ;-) > > Juergen > > > >
