On 6/5/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The three votes did not comply with the "patched and tested" requirement
of the RTC rules.
Correct (that's the topic of another thread to change it).
Those RTC rules were established by Ken, the PMC Chair. The PMC Chair
has the power to esta
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 6/3/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Agree that we need to discuss getting the process relaxed officially
with Ken's approval.
That struck me - why would we await Ken's approval if there were 3x+1
votes from PMC members? Wouldn't it be enough? Just curious.
On 6/3/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Agree that we need to discuss getting the process relaxed officially
with Ken's approval.
That struck me - why would we await Ken's approval if there were 3x+1
votes from PMC members? Wouldn't it be enough? Just curious...
John
Jacek
--
Ja
On Jun 3, 2006, at 12:13 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 2, 2006, at 8:42 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
It seems that there are now +1's from 3 committers for this
change. Although I also support the change (once copyrights are
corected), I cannot offer a +1. Apologies for be
On Jun 2, 2006, at 8:42 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
It seems that there are now +1's from 3 committers for this
change. Although I also support the change (once copyrights are
corected), I cannot offer a +1. Apologies for being a pedant, but
to my knowledge the current RTC
Kevan Miller wrote:
It seems that there are now +1's from 3 committers for this change.
Although I also support the change (once copyrights are corected), I
cannot offer a +1. Apologies for being a pedant, but to my knowledge
the current RTC "rules" we are living under are:
'I have applied
One option is if we could allow non-committers to vote if they
declare that they have applied AND tested the patch.
On Jun 2, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
It seems that there are now +1's from 3 committers for this change.
Although I also support the change (once copyrights are cor
FYI, I've already committed the change, and was gonna just run
thought the entire source tree to update all copyrights for any file
created this year.
On Jun 2, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
It seems that there are now +1's from 3 committers for this change.
Although I also suppor
It seems that there are now +1's from 3 committers for this change.
Although I also support the change (once copyrights are corected), I
cannot offer a +1. Apologies for being a pedant, but to my knowledge
the current RTC "rules" we are living under are:
'I have applied this patch and tes
No reason. Thought it was easier to follow. I don't have a problem
adding setters, thx for the suggestion! :)
On Jun 1, 2006, at 1:01 PM, David Jencks wrote:
+1 to committing this.
I wondered why there are separate dependency and import wizards?
It looks like just some titles are differ
+1 to committing this.
I wondered why there are separate dependency and import wizards? It
looks like just some titles are different, would it be appropriate to
have just one wizard in which you can set the import element if
appropriate?
thanks
david jencks
On Jun 1, 2006, at 6:42 AM,
11 matches
Mail list logo
