+0 on length
+1 on a limit
Ian
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 19:36, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Our current proposal time limit was set in the days of subversion when we
> had a single "trunk" and relatively strong divisions between modules in our
> library. The idea being that a 3-day waiting period was
I think 14 days is too much, but looks like everyone else is happy with
14 days, so +0
On Tue, 2020-03-03 at 11:42 -0800, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Sorry I should of said 14 days (so that we get a balance of weekend,
> workweek, and one of our meetings for discussion). Thanks!
>
> And here is my +1
>
+1 with having a limit (it's really missing in GeoServer I believe)
Don't care too much if 14 or 10 days, minor difference.
Cheers
Andrea
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 8:45 PM Jody Garnett wrote:
> Sorry I should of said 14 days (so that we get a balance of weekend,
> workweek, and one of our
See other email.
I would prefer 10 but if anybody else wants 10 who am I to disagree?
Il giorno mar 3 mar 2020 alle 20:43 Jody Garnett
ha scritto:
> Sorry I should of said 14 days (so that we get a balance of weekend,
> workweek, and one of our meetings for discussion). Thanks!
>
> And here is
Sorry I should of said 14 days (so that we get a balance of weekend,
workweek, and one of our meetings for discussion). Thanks!
And here is my +1
--
Jody Garnett
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 11:35, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Our current proposal time limit was set in the days of subversion when we
> had
+1
Il giorno mar 3 mar 2020 alle 20:36 Jody Garnett
ha scritto:
> Our current proposal time limit was set in the days of subversion when we
> had a single "trunk" and relatively strong divisions between modules in our
> library. The idea being that a 3-day waiting period was good enough for
>
Our current proposal time limit was set in the days of subversion when we
had a single "trunk" and relatively strong divisions between modules in our
library. The idea being that a 3-day waiting period was good enough for
feedback before starting work :)
To avoid stagnation by lack of
