Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-forrest-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 73216 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2004 04:13:13 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Oct 2004 04:13:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 98982 invoked by uid 500); 19 Oct 2004 04:13:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-forrest-dev-archive@forrest.apache.org Received: (qmail 98911 invoked by uid 500); 19 Oct 2004 04:13:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@forrest.apache.org Received: (qmail 98898 invoked by uid 99); 19 Oct 2004 04:13:06 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [65.77.211.93] (HELO indexgeo.net) (65.77.211.93) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:13:05 -0700 Received: from [192.168.1.100] (static-109.227.240.220.dsl.comindico.com.au [220.240.227.109]) (authenticated bits=0) by www2.kc.aoindustries.com (8.12.9-20030917/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9J4CgcW024136 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:13:01 -0500 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Merge plugins branch From: David Crossley To: dev@forrest.apache.org In-Reply-To: <1098114387.4173e553b2c06@secure.solidusdesign.com> References: <4173D0FF.2050200@apache.org> <1098114387.4173e553b2c06@secure.solidusdesign.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1098159027.4222.43682.camel@ighp> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 19 Oct 2004 14:11:50 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Dave Brondsema wrote: > Quoting Ross Gardler: > > > So, shall I merge the branch at this time? > > If it's usable (even if it has bugs) and it's our future direction, then yes. > Having it in trunk will force people to test & improve it. Always better to get back to trunk ASAP. + 1 from me. > > I think the process is if I don't get any -1's in 36 hours I can go > > ahead, is that right? > > Yes I think so... We have not set any time period on such things. So on this occasion lets go with what you suggested. This is a good test case to help us finalise our bylaws. Probably need another "action" for "merging a branch". > we should finish up bylaws.xml and vote on it, so we can have > all these things on our website. Too true. I have been trying for ages to get people to comment on the current draft. --David