sebb wrote:
On 11 May 2016 at 15:49, Josh Elser wrote:
> Well, I'd ask that you tell me what you think is wrong in what currently
> exists. I did what you asked for rc1 already, but apparently you still find
> it insufficient?
The RN section which mentioned the compatibility issues was b
On 11 May 2016 at 15:49, Josh Elser wrote:
> Well, I'd ask that you tell me what you think is wrong in what currently
> exists. I did what you asked for rc1 already, but apparently you still find
> it insufficient?
The RN section which mentioned the compatibility issues was buried at
the end of a
Well, I'd ask that you tell me what you think is wrong in what currently
exists. I did what you asked for rc1 already, but apparently you still
find it insufficient?
sebb wrote:
Please ensure that the changes description and therefore RN contain
details of why we think the Clirr errors are not
Please ensure that the changes description and therefore RN contain
details of why we think the Clirr errors are not BC errors.
I don't have time just now, but I may be able to update them later today.
On 11 May 2016 at 05:06, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Don't despair, I plan on being +1 for the next
Don't despair, I plan on being +1 for the next RC :-)
Gary
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> Well, this seems to have officially been stalled after 2 binding votes
> (which is super disheartening).
>
> 1, +1
> 1, -1
> 1, non-binding +1.
>
> Thank you Gary, Stian, and Benedikt
Well, this seems to have officially been stalled after 2 binding votes
(which is super disheartening).
1, +1
1, -1
1, non-binding +1.
Thank you Gary, Stian, and Benedikt for finding the time to vote!
I guess I'll pull in Gary's changes and hope we can get the minimum
binding votes for the nex
