river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>
Subject Re: JVM version policy Was: Re: Build failed in Hudson: River-trunk-jdk1.5 #3
Date Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:11:20 GMT
Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
> On 11/24/2010 01:52 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
>> +1  For the current build.
> Voting does not allow for an extra qualification. Does this mean that 
> you will only vote +1 if a terminating clause is included?

I think we need to distinguish better between discussing and voting. I
suggest that when we are doing a formal vote we put "[VOTE]" in the
subject line, and have a definite proposition that we are voting on.
Until we do that, we are still discussing, "+1" is an idiom
indicating general agreement, and it can be qualified just as much as "I 
generally agree with the quoted message." could be qualified.

If we had started a formal vote, the qualification might indicate that
we had not yet done enough discussing. I suggest we continue discussing
a little longer, and then call a vote. We will probably be able to reach
a consensus proposal that will get a lot of definite positive votes.


View raw message