2016/7/7 7:58:29 -0700, ad...@redhat.com:
> On 07/07/16 15:52, Paul Benedict wrote:
>> Hi Mark. Do these set of changes mean those alternative proposals are now
>> set in stone? I didn't know feedback was finished. ...
>
> I though Alan's note made this clear
>
> "The jigsaw/jake forest has been
Thanks Andrew. Lots of emails flying around. I picked the wrong one. I do
see he made it clear in another post. Thanks.
Cheers,
Paul
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Andrew Dinn wrote:
>
>
> On 07/07/16 15:52, Paul Benedict wrote:
> > Hi Mark. Do these set of changes mean those alternative propo
On 07/07/16 15:52, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Hi Mark. Do these set of changes mean those alternative proposals are now
> set in stone? I didn't know feedback was finished. For example, and I may
> have missed this, but I can't recall one message in support of the
> "requires static" syntax. As I sai
Hi Mark. Do these set of changes mean those alternative proposals are now
set in stone? I didn't know feedback was finished. For example, and I may
have missed this, but I can't recall one message in support of the
"requires static" syntax. As I said, I may have missed the supporters, but
I don't r
