On May 28, 2015 5:31 AM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
>
> Why just 2 options and why *these* 2?
>
> The VOTE is worthless and obviously designed to stop discussion.
> I am not voting.
By all means then, don't.
To answer your question, these are the only two directions the project has
taken over the la
On 28/05/2015 17:59, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> On 28/05/2015 14:48, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> Enough of this ad-hominem BS... [...]
>
> You've lost the argument and lost respect, you have demonstrated that by this
> pathetic an
On May 28, 2015 8:38 AM, "Yann Ylavic" wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:32 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Yann Ylavic
wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I think I would have preferred Jeff's form of the vote, which would
> >> have allowed us to know the potential "opera
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:32 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think I would have preferred Jeff's form of the vote, which would
>> have allowed us to know the potential "operating forces" on 2.2.x.
>
>
> We determined from that poll tha
Why just 2 options and why *these* 2?
The VOTE is worthless and obviously designed to stop discussion.
I am not voting.
> On May 28, 2015, at 12:44 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> Choose one;
>
> [ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to
> that date
> [ ] Defe
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On 28/05/2015 14:48, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> Enough of this ad-hominem BS... [...]
>
>
> You've lost the argument and lost respect, you have demonstrated that by
> this pathetic and childish response. Just because others have a differen
On 28/05/2015 14:48, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> Enough of this ad-hominem BS... this is in fact a majority rule decision (it
> is a vote
> not on code but on procedure), and is binding on the project as a whole. I
> don't
> want to discuss this again for six months and I'm not keen on the
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> I think I would have preferred Jeff's form of the vote, which would
> have allowed us to know the potential "operating forces" on 2.2.x.
>
We determined from that poll that there were >3 committers who
would fix bugs on 2.2, so that discuss
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:44 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> Choose one;
>
> [ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to
> that date
> [X] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal in
> Nov, '15.
I think I would have preferred Jeff's form o
On 5/27/2015 9:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
Choose one;
[ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to
that date
[X] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal
in Nov, '15.
Le 28/05/2015 06:44, William A Rowe Jr a écrit :
Choose one;
[ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases
to that date
[X] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this
proposal in Nov, '15.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> Choose one;
>
> [ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to
> that date
> [X] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal
> in Nov, '15.
>
Enough of this ad-hominem BS... this is
Choose one;
[ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to
that date
[ ] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal
in Nov, '15.
13 matches
Mail list logo
