I think that rule only applies to live animals.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> If my MSDN thing ever goes through from the ASF, I'm prepared to spend >> some spare time on getting couch working on Windows. It sounds like >> the OTP issues are resolved, which was the worst part. >> >> Do we have enough votes to ship this puppy or what? >> > > We have enough votes but its illegal to ship animals through the USPS > without filling out a lot of forms. I'd rather avoid it if at all > possible. > >> B. >> >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 26 Jan 2011, at 13:03, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>> >>>> In this case I don't care much if we record any of this (no objections >>>> either). What I am after is that the fact that for reliable storage on >>>> Windows Erlang R14B1 is required for 1.0.2 should be noted in a place >>>> where people downloading or reading up on 1.0.2 are looking (i.e. the >>>> release announcement mail, which gets syndicated to many news sites as >>>> well as the download page, where, duh, the download happens). >>> >>> Sure. But I'm just trying to clarify how we handle this, so that we can >>> apply it to future releases as well. If there's been a minimum required >>> version in the past, we usually put it in the README. >>> >>> We have never, to date, included any minimum version information in either >>> the release announcement or on the downloads page. If the community feels >>> that this is important enough in this case to warrant breaking with that >>> convention, then so be it. >>> >>> But I'm trying to get a handle on when this is likely to happen again, so >>> that we can ratify it in our release procedure. >> >
