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 20:38:07 GMT
At 02:29 PM 3/17/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:14 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
>>What was insufficiently explicit about
>>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>>-1 for apr-util / apr-iconv.
>>which Paul replied to?
>I still don't see any message from you on any list that said that.  Did you happen to
vote in private?

Ahhh... yes.  He responded on-list, so it was recorded indirectly.
But until I just replied to your note now, I wasn't on record.
So we jump from +2, to +1, to...

>>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.
>I still think this is an over-reaction as no one operated in bad faith here.


> I maintain that any effort would be better placed at fixing the problems and rolling
a new apr-iconv 1.1.0 that fixes whatever problem you seem to think is present today.

Glad it's all in my mind, and not in observations on the SVN list
and here.  I didn't invent the problem.  We (a community) created
this conflict.  It's our responsibility to mitigate the problem.
Releasing another borked tarball with the same issues only aggravates
the problem, for svn, httpd and other users.

So yours and Paul's position is shove it out the door.

I disrespectfully disagree.

>That could likely be done in less time with less animosity and 
>less emails.

Scroll back, you are the individual who has personalized this.

Position stands, this tarball is not an ASF approved release by
our release guidelines.  Until a net of two more +1's chime in, 
it stays that way.

View raw message