Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 17796 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2005 02:20:26 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Oct 2005 02:20:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 9704 invoked by uid 500); 6 Oct 2005 02:20:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 9672 invoked by uid 500); 6 Oct 2005 02:20:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 9661 invoked by uid 99); 6 Oct 2005 02:20:24 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:20:24 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [69.225.174.131] (HELO x.win.covalent.net) (69.225.174.131) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:20:27 -0700 Received: from [192.168.0.21] ([24.13.128.132]) by x.win.covalent.net over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:18:30 -0700 Message-ID: <43448994.6030902@rowe-clan.net> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:19:00 -0500 From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc3 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: iconv - mistake #27? References: <43420C93.60602@rowe-clan.net> <20051004080458.GA15835@stdlib.net> <434487B3.2000702@rowe-clan.net> In-Reply-To: <434487B3.2000702@rowe-clan.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Oct 2005 02:18:30.0656 (UTC) FILETIME=[3E827800:01C5CA1C] X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: > >> For what it's worth, I've put in the time to review and test each of the >> proposals you posted, but saw little point in voting. Nevertheless; +1. >> You can decide what weight to afford it ;) (non-PMC, committer-in-limbo, >> so I suspect zero) > > I better clarify - do you mean +1 to axe xlate/iconv, or did you mean > to +1 apr-util 1.1.1? As a new committer (even if the switches haven't > been thrown yet), certainly your vote makes a difference. Sorry, doing too many things at the same time... question was is your vote +1 to axe xlate/iconv, or +1 to apr-iconv 1.1.1? Bill