On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Stefan Eissing
<stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
> FTR: I refuse any discussion where people, already in the initial
> statements, discuss each others merit and downfalls and whatnot.
> If you want to talk about technical stuff and/or propose a project plan,
> start a new thread without all that destructive crap I will not waste
> any more time than this mail about.

That's exactly what I did;

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:19 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Is anyone seeing an issue of concern about stability on 2.4.x branch?
> Has anyone else looked at Jim's proposed fixes for xcode 9 building
> under maintainer mode? A couple-line quick fix to configure.in, that
> anyone on OS/X should be able to validate in minutes. The same fix
> is already present on APR's branches, which I will tag as well.
> I'll proceed to tag 2.5.0, and 2.4.29 after a couple hour comment
> period, so that the many proposed enhancements can be examined
> by alpha testers and our quick adopters of 2.4.28 can be back on track
> by early next week. That should simplify getting some of the more
> complex patches backported as necessary, or move us forward
> in any case.

There was no animus or personality involved in this statement. Follow
the thread to find out where it "broke" and who broke it.

I will kill this thread; I should have limited it to responding that
our ruleset inhibits vetoes of tags and releases; then a second fresh
thread not to anyone's comment in particular explaining the basis of
2.5.0-alpha. My bad, I apologize for mixing the two, and will more
carefully avoid this in the future.

Reply via email to