At 01:54 PM 3/17/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >--On Thursday, March 17, 2005 1:25 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL >PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I have done a search against pmc@ and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Justin 'amended' >>his +1 to include 1.0.2. Nobody else did so (some explicitly >>did not vote on this item). >> >>I'm explicitly voting -1 against a 1.0.2 release. Curt's issue >>is explicitly harmful to apr-iconv users. There is a (rather large) >>breakage that seems has been deliberately ignored by an overeager RM. > >Paul explicitly posted a tally yesterday afternoon and you didn't bring this >up then. Nowhere can I find you saying -1 for apr-iconv, so your -1 is news >to me and probably to Paul as well.
What was insufficiently explicit about William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > -1 for apr-util / apr-iconv. which Paul replied to? I then replied +1 to apr. Only apr. This problem doesn't impact either apr nor apr-util, only apr-iconv. Paul's Tally subject was 1.1.1. It was not 1.0.2 It did not contain the text iconv. Most individuals who voted did NOT vote on apr-iconv. Some voted only on apr. Some voted on both apr, apr-util, and did not vote on apr-iconv. >Additionally, I maintain that this isn't a regression. So, my +1 still stands. Oh, I'm counting your +1, my -1. Presuming the RM voted +1 since he rolled it, I get 1 vote. Not 3. This is an absolute violation of our charter and operating guidelines. With that, the counter is at four hours, and I will pull down this apr-iconv tarball unless the vote concludes in favor of this tarball.
