apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: APR-Iconv 1.0.2 Released
Date Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:14:49 GMT
At 01:54 PM 3/17/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Thursday, March 17, 2005 1:25 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:
>
>>I have done a search against pmc@ and apr@.  Justin 'amended'
>>his +1 to include 1.0.2.  Nobody else did so (some explicitly
>>did not vote on this item).
>>
>>I'm explicitly voting -1 against a 1.0.2 release.  Curt's issue
>>is explicitly harmful to apr-iconv users.  There is a (rather large)
>>breakage that seems has been deliberately ignored by an overeager RM.
>
>Paul explicitly posted a tally yesterday afternoon and you didn't bring this up then.
 Nowhere can I find you saying -1 for apr-iconv, so your -1 is news to me and probably to
Paul as well.

What was insufficiently explicit about
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> -1 for apr-util / apr-iconv.

which Paul replied to?

I then replied +1 to apr.  Only apr.  This problem doesn't
impact either apr nor apr-util, only apr-iconv.

Paul's Tally subject was 1.1.1.  It was not 1.0.2  It did not
contain the text iconv.  Most individuals who voted did NOT vote
on apr-iconv.  Some voted only on apr.  Some voted on both
apr, apr-util, and did not vote on apr-iconv.

>Additionally, I maintain that this isn't a regression.  So, my +1 still stands.

Oh, I'm counting your +1, my -1.  Presuming the RM voted +1 since
he rolled it, I get 1 vote.  Not 3.  This is an absolute violation
of our charter and operating guidelines.

With that, the counter is at four hours, and I will pull
down this apr-iconv tarball unless the vote concludes
in favor of this tarball.




Mime
View raw message