It is actually a modification of existing code. In an earlier e-mail [1], Martin said: 'This vote concerns just the existing components.'.
[1] http://markmail.org/message/uhg2rtigcnljm4ii Haykel On 3 April 2012 16:01, Jeff Tapper <j...@spoon.as> wrote: > As its not a modification of existing code, but a proposed mod on a future > release, Im not sure this qualifies. Can one of the mentors weigh in on > this? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Heidegger [mailto:m...@leichtgewicht.at] > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 10:46 AM > To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [RT] Voting Result was [VOTE][FLEX-7] package > "org.apache.flex" > > On 03/04/2012 23:17, Jeff Tapper wrote: > > By my reading of the rules, the first issue passes and the 2nd fails. > > As this wasn't about a commit to the trunk, I don't think the -1's are > > a veto, but a +3 would be required to pass, correct? > > The rules say on "code modification" - changing the packages is certainly a > code modification, isn't it? > > yours > Martin. > >
