On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 23:56 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote: > On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 13:46 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks. I'm still in favour of putting the correct one from the dist > > > back. > > > > big +1 > > Then I suggest that someone call a proper vote on doing this (this > thread isn't really a vote thread). The initial email should list the > exact tasks that are going to be done (see my recent email for a > suggested list). > > Once the vote passes that someone should then go ahead and do it.
most of the proposed actions require only lazy consensus. however, i can't actually remove the jar just yet and a vote would tidy probably tidy things up. i'll start this on another thread. > > > If anyone has problems using the original 1.0 where it used to work, > > > I suggest a 1.0.1 release can then be worked on. > > > > +1 again. > > I don't understand this at all. People have built against a > snapshot-of-unknown-date mistakenly labelled 1.0. Building a 1.0.1 based > on the 1.0 code won't produce something that can replace what they built > against. And building a 1.0.1 based on HEAD won't produce something that > can replace what they built against. the original jar could be made available from ibiblio as a dated snapshot provided that someone with ibiblio karma is willing to upload it. i have no worries about the authenticity of the jar. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
