Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of dblevins@visi.com designates
 208.42.156.2 as permitted sender)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:27:38 -0700
From: David Blevins <david.blevins@visi.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: M4 Status
Message-ID: <20050718052738.GA7593@django>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0507171539280.20976@saturn.opentools.org>
 <42DAD607.90406@savoirtech.com> <42DADE1D.3030901@toolazydogs.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0507171941281.20976@saturn.opentools.org>
 <42DAEF96.8050006@toolazydogs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <42DAEF96.8050006@toolazydogs.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

I'm with Alan.  


-David

(excuse the incorrect quoting; mutt & elinks don't like Alan's blackberry)

On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 07:53:58AM +0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>    Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/18/2005 7:46 AM:
> 
>  On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> 
> 
>  I think that this should wait for M5 or we recut M4.  Tossing in new
>  features into a QA branch is a not so good idea.
> 
> 
>          You're effectively moving to ignore the result of a previous
>  discussion, where a number of people voted to distribute two identical M4
>  releases, one with Jetty, and one with Tomcat.  There is no reasonable way
>  to do that without Jeff's change.
> 
> 
>    Opps.  I didn't realize that it would require code changes.
> 
>          I don't think it's necessary to recut the branch to merge this in.
>  It's a few simple svn merge commands.
> 
> 
>    I think that the notion that adding new features into a QA branch is a bad
>    idea stands, regardless of how simple the changes are and how simple it is
>    to merge them.  It's simply bad form.
> 
>          If we do want to change the decision to distribute only a Jetty
>  build of M4, then we can leave this change out, but we need more people's
>  opinions (particularly the people who voted for two separate but equal M4
>  releases).  I don't care a lot either way.
> 
> 
>    I'm not opposed to the what and why.  I am opposed to the how.
> 
>    Regards,
>    Alan
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:90: unknown option
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:90: parse error
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:97: unknown option
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:97: parse error
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:754: unknown option
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:754: parse error
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:758: unknown option
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:758: parse error
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:762: unknown option
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:762: parse error
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:908: unknown option
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:908: parse error
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:912: unknown option
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:912: parse error
>