On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 23:10 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote: > 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).
i've posted a vote thread containing the only action required for oversight. i attached the replacement vote with it since they would probably need to be executed together. i'm willing to start VOTE threads for the other proposals but i might not be the best advocate: it would be possible to roll a binary-only 1.0.1 without license worries but i'm no longer so sure what this would achieve (but it's very possible i missed the point)... i would like to see the bogus jar made available as a dated snapshot but i don't have karma... simon: you've thought through the permutations carefully. i'd be grateful if you could outline what other actions we could take that might help users. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
