I think Bill's main point is that other than himself and gsmith, nobody else tests on MS/Win. I tried, but I never got even to the point of getting it to even compile/build much less to a point where I could *test* :)
> On May 22, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Nick Kew <n...@webthing.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 22 May 2015 01:51:49 -0500 > William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > >> It might be worth mentioning that it's been in production for about 3-4 >> years or so, and only was delayed in 2.2 due to the unavoidable drift >> between trunk/2.4 and 2.2 flavors. We already included the >> ported-afterwards functionality in the previous 2.4.12 release, with >> apparently no issues. The patch below is actually the origin of the >> enhancement. > > In those circumstances it seems not so much CTR or RTC but rather > commonsense to go ahead. Don't we have a bit of a history of > struggling to meet RTC criteria on Windows-specific backports? > > I wonder if there's a case for formally adopting a lazy-consensus > policy based on what wrowe is doing here? If a proposal has sat in > STATUS for a qualifying period, without attracting comment/ > reservations, but also without attracting sufficient review +1s, > should it be eligible for lazy-consensus backport? > The proponent posts here on a "speak now or forever hold your peace" > basis, and goes ahead if no discussion calls it into question. > > -- > Nick Kew
