Hi Markus,
2014-04-06 10:01 GMT+02:00 Markus Metz markus.metz.gisw...@gmail.com:
big strong +1 for me, Martin
+1 from me too, with one comment: I will only backport bugfixes to a
releasebranch, not new functionality. That includes releasebranch_7_0.
The (my) objective is to stabilize any
Dear PSC members,
2014-04-06 10:08 GMT+02:00 Martin Landa landa.mar...@gmail.com:
+1 from me too, with one comment: I will only backport bugfixes to a
releasebranch, not new functionality. That includes releasebranch_7_0.
The (my) objective is to stabilize any releasebranch.
this should
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Martin Landa landa.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
2014-03-31 9:57 GMT+02:00 Sören Gebbert soerengebb...@googlemail.com:
+1
I agree to 100%
big strong +1 for me, Martin
also from me: retire GRASS6.5.svn (=develbranch6).
markusN
PSC;
since the voting discussion is scattered around in various email
threads, I start a new one to separate it from ongoing motions. Please
re-express your comments as answer to this email.
RFC3: PSC Voting Procedures
http://grass.osgeo.org/programming7/rfc3_psc.html
Issues:
- people are
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote:
PSC;
since the voting discussion is scattered around in various email
threads, I start a new one to separate it from ongoing motions. Please
re-express your comments as answer to this email.
RFC3: PSC Voting
On 06/04/14 13:46, Hamish wrote:
First of all, I believe this discussion belongs on the grass-dev list, not PSC.
See RFC1.
CC'in to dev-list
releasebranch70 should not have been branched until 7.0RC1. Until RC1
it is just wasted effort to keep the two of them as a 1:1 mirror, so
what's
Madi’s suggestion makes sense to me. I suppose that the wording of #2 could be
modified to allow for the case where all members have already voted with no
dissenting comments, if we think a rush situation might come up. I.e. instead
of just increasing 4 days to 7 days, it could be worded as a
On 06/04/14 12:48, Markus Neteler wrote:
PSC;
since the voting discussion is scattered around in various email
threads, I start a new one to separate it from ongoing motions. Please
re-express your comments as answer to this email.
RFC3: PSC Voting Procedures
Hi,
2014-04-06 15:16 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert mlenn...@club.worldonline.be:
As already mentioned I was also a bit surprised by this. I'm not sure we are
really ready for something more than a tech-preview (and not a real
release), but maybe it could be the kick in the behind that we need to
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Moritz Lennert
mlenn...@club.worldonline.be wrote:
On 06/04/14 12:48, Markus Neteler wrote:
PSC;
since the voting discussion is scattered around in various email
threads, I start a new one to separate it from ongoing motions. Please
re-express your comments
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Moritz Lennert
mlenn...@club.worldonline.be wrote:
On 06/04/14 13:46, Hamish wrote:
As mentioned before, I wish to use the bulk of my grass dev time
maintaining the grass 6 line. To do that properly I need a staging
area, and devbr6 is it.
I don't see the
In my opinion things worked quite fine in the last years.
- Madi proposal is also fine: 7 days may give more chance for everybody to
be connected for voting.
- Probably having majority only after that period would suffice for motion
to pass.
- Vote is mandatory for write access to SVN, otherwise
I believe that we have a communication problem here rather than a disagreement
about the GRASS6.5:
Hamish says:
GRASS 6.x is already far along into bugfix maintenance mode.
*Please, just leave it to naturally and quietly make its way into history.*
I wish to use the bulk of my grass dev time
I second Helena on quorum (min 51%), and also +1 for the 7 days suggestion
of MaDi.
On 7 April 2014 06:19, Helena Mitasova hmit...@ncsu.edu wrote:
I agree with the voting rules with the following changes/comments:
- change 4 business days to seven days to avoid confusion given that
business
14 matches
Mail list logo
