Hi,
I vote +1 :-)
Peter
Am 26.09.2007 um 16:22 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
I'd like to call a vote on acceptance of the above methodology,
as crafted and fine-tuned by Costin and myself. It is worthwhile
to note that, really, these are the typical ASF methods, but
with some "grainy" aspects be
[ ] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
as well as the problems which started this whole
thing.
Just to be sure
2007/9/26, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I'd like to call a vote on acceptance of the above methodology,
> > as crafted and fine-tune
I'd like to call a vote on acceptance of the above methodology,
as crafted and fine-tuned by Costin and myself. It is worthwhile
to note that, really, these are the typical ASF methods, but
with some "grainy" aspects better defined. In essence, some
typical "niceties" are now mandated (changes,
jean-frederic clere wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> - There is only one dev branch. I am -1 for creating separate dev
>> branches for 3.3.x, 4.1.x, 5.0.x and 5.5.x on the grounds it is too much
>> overhead for branches that are in maintenance mode where 99% of the
>> patch
+1
2007/9/23, Peter Rossbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>>[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
> >>>as well as the problems which started this whole
> >>>thing.
> >>>[ ] 0. Whatever.
> >>>[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
as well as the problems which started this whole
thing.
[ ] 0. Whatever.
[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
I agree with Remy: We must find a process that really work normally
quick
Jim Jagielski schrieb:
>[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
>as well as the problems which started this whole
>thing.
>[ ] 0. Whatever.
>[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
--
Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
> >as well as the problems which started this whole
> >thing.
> >[ ] 0. Whatever.
> >[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
> >
>
> With
Mladen Turk wrote:
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >
> >[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
> >as well as the problems which started this whole
> >thing.
> >[ ] 0. Whatever.
> >[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
> >
Mark Thomas wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
>>as well as the problems which started this whole
>>thing.
>>[ ] 0. Whatever.
>>[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
>>
>
> With the follow
+1
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
>
>[ ] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
>as well as the problems which started this whole
>thing.
>[ ] 0. Whatever.
>[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
>
> The vote will run for 96 hours inst
Mark Thomas wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
as well as the problems which started this whole
thing.
[ ] 0. Whatever.
[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
With the following caveats:
- The
Jim Jagielski wrote:
[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
as well as the problems which started this whole
thing.
[ ] 0. Whatever.
[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
If voted (and it looks it will) we should put them s
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
>as well as the problems which started this whole
>thing.
>[ ] 0. Whatever.
>[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
>
With the following caveats:
- There is only
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
as well as the problems which started this whole
thing.
[ ] 0. Whatever.
[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
My proposal
Remy Maucherat wrote:
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
> >as well as the problems which started this whole
> >thing.
> >[ ] 0. Whatever.
> >[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
>
> My prop
Jim Jagielski wrote:
[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
as well as the problems which started this whole
thing.
[ ] 0. Whatever.
[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
The vote will run for 96 hours instead of the normal 7
+1
On 9/22/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> >
> >[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
> >as well as the problems which started this whole
> >thing.
> >[ ] 0. Whatever.
> >[
this email is so unclean, I'm a bit confused on the exact bullets, mind
posting a new thread?
Filip
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sep 21, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sep 21, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Costin Manolache wrote:
On 9/21/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just pr
Jim Jagielski wrote:
[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
as well as the problems which started this whole
thing.
[ ] 0. Whatever.
[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
My proposal was to put the principles forward clearly:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
as well as the problems which started this whole
thing.
[ ] 0. Whatever.
[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
--
Here is the synopsis:
o Existence of release and development branches
in parallel with each other (dev are odd numbered,
release are even numbered).
o Development branches are CTR. If code or patches
to this branch change the API, advanced warning
is required even before
Can we have a new VOTE with the six bullets (if it is that many - I'm
losing track with all the responses).
I'm not quite sure what I'm voting for.
-Tim
I'd like to call a vote on acceptance of the above methodology,
as crafted and fine-tuned by Costin and myself. It is worthwhile
to note tha
Hey,
On 9/22/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ X ] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
> as well as the problems which started this whole
> thing.
Yoav
-
To unsubscribe,
On Sep 22, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
as well as the problems which started this whole
thing.
[ ] 0. Whatever.
[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
The vote will run for 96
On Sep 21, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sep 21, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Costin Manolache wrote:
On 9/21/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just propose a polite way to move from the commit for a
controversial
change ( i.e. when someone feels strongly it's going to the
26 matches
Mail list logo
