I find this post disturbing. Had it been posted before the vote closed I most
certainly would have voted -1 as we don't encourage hostile forks at the ASF.
Ralph
On Dec 30, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Ethan Jucovy wrote:
-1
The Bloodhound proposal is to build an issue tracker by first importing the
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.comwrote:
I find this post disturbing. Had it been posted before the vote closed I
most certainly would have voted -1 as we don't encourage hostile forks at
the ASF.
I hadn't realized the vote was closed until after sending
Arguing about the vote procedure isn't likely to get you very far. At this
point, I would recommend that you hold a vote on the appropriate Trac mailing
list regarding approving or disapproving a fork and then forwarding that here.
If the existing community doesn't want a fork I would suspect
Agreed: we don't (and shouldn't) encourage hostile forks at the ASF.
This isn't a hostile fork.
From the beginning, the intention of Bloodhound has been to be to use
the existing Trac system as much as possible and to improve upon it.
After many private (and some public) conversations with
