On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > 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. > > I still think this is an over-reaction as no one operated in bad faith > here. I maintain that any effort would be better placed at fixing the > problems and rolling a new apr-iconv 1.1.0 that fixes whatever problem you > seem to think is present today. That could likely be done in less time > with less animosity and less emails. -- justin
For what it's worth, I agree with Justin here. I think I recall seeing a -1, but I was under the impression that the -1 was just against apr-util 1.1.1 for the issue that was subsequently fixed in apr-util 1.1.2, hence the reason why apr-util 1.1.1 was pulled. Anyway why don't we just move on, since this is not a regression but a pre-existing bug, and simply agree to take a bit more time waiting for feedback on future releases. --Cliff
