The problem with these reverts is that I've already pulled them into javelin when we started the merge. I'm not sure what to do now because they are quite large and complicated to unwind.
Any suggestions? --Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Chip Childers > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> IMO, no. I want the first issue resolved first (revert the code that > >> shouldn't be in the repo). Then we can talk about accepting the > >> donation proposal I assume is coming. > >> > >> But this is just my opinion. Anyone else? > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Chip > >>> > >>> Should we expedite IP clearance process and avoid having to revert > commits? > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> Animesh > >>> > > > > > > I don't know that there is a 'expedite' option. Our history thus far > > is that this doesn't happen rapidly. I think the fastest we can get > > away with is likely a week - and that's assuming all of the planets > > align, all paperwork is immediately signed, acknowledged, we have only > > tailwinds, etc. Given that it is currently the 11th, I'm not even sure > > that with the volume of problematic features that they'll even be > > through IP Clearance by code freeze. > > > > --David > > > > These reverts are now blocking Chiradeep's refactoring effort / merge > proposal. I'd suggest that not only should the reverts happen first, > but that they happen soon please.
