On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I think Bill's main point is that other than himself and > gsmith, nobody else tests on MS/Win. There might be others who test when something seems appropriate to them and they have time ;) > 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 > > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
