Hi,
I might have been a bit harsh here to Veto this merge, after actually
providing a positive note. But I investigated why the merge didn't go
through and I realised there is a digit missing in the nomination for the
first three revisions. I'm fairly sure it should be r1912501, r1912502,
r1912503 instead (missing the third digit).
I'd like someone (Yasuhito?) to crosscheck, if you agree feel free to
modify my vote back to the old +0 with comment and move to approved.
Kind regards,
Daniel
Den tors 19 okt. 2023 kl 02:02 skrev :
> Author: dsahlberg
> Date: Thu Oct 19 00:02:48 2023
> New Revision: 1913094
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1913094=rev
> Log:
> In branches/1.14.x:
>
> * STATUS
> Remove my nomination for the swig-py fixes. Explained on dev@
>
> Modified:
> subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
>
> Modified: subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
> URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS?rev=1913094=1913093=1913094=diff
>
> ==
> --- subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS (original)
> +++ subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS Thu Oct 19 00:02:48 2023
> @@ -39,13 +39,14 @@ Candidate changes:
> Veto-blocked changes:
> =
>
> -Approved changes:
> -=
> -
> * r192501, r192502, r192503, r1912500, r1912515, r1912517, r1912691
> swig-py: Use pure Python objects as edit/parse_fns3 and decendant
> batons.
> Justification:
> Bug fix. Issue #4916, #4917, #4918
> Votes:
> +1: futatuki
> - +0: dsahlberg (not enough experience for +1, but looks good)
> + -1: dsahlberg Nominated revision numbers doesn't make sense, see dev@
> +
> +Approved changes:
> +=
> +
>
>
>
