On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:34 PM, sebb wrote: > > > IMO it's important to ensure that the package change really is necessary. >
Somehow I thought that was accomplished by the last release candidate failing to get the required votes due to the package name not being changed. If the recommendation had been made to make the API binary compatible I would have done that instead of going and renaming the package. I'm getting tired of wasting my time. Ralph
