> -----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.
I intend to do things the right way too, I am following up on impact of getting the changes reverted. Some of the folks are in different time zone though.
