On 6/20/07, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is up to the RM, but with a -1 from a major contributor to the code base, I would personally not push out the release. FWIW, as mentioned on other threads, I agree with Stephen on the version number issue.
The problem is simply that votes for releases on commons drive me sick. It is not the exception, but the standard, that people demand changes (which they of course assume that the RM will do) and use a -1 to enforce their opinion. I have a different opinion in this matter. I see absolutely no problem with a compiler warning as long as I may drop in the binary to a running system: *That* is what I call binary compatible and what assume to be the contract for binary releases. My point of view is that he or she who demands such work (going through the docs and find all occurrencies of 1.3.2 and such is a nontrivial work and will easily take two hours or so) should be ready to do it for himself *or* leave it up to me to decide. Jochen -- "Besides, manipulating elections is under penalty of law, resulting in a preventative effect against manipulating elections. The german government justifying the use of electronic voting machines and obviously believing that we don't need a police, because all illegal actions are forbidden. http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/16/051/1605194.pdf --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
