On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:07:11PM +0200, Guillaume MM wrote: > > I am sure that Scott meant to include in some way the option that I have > been advocating constantly from the beginning, which I understand is > probably 1. (Otherwise, I do not see what the option 1. refers to nor > who proposed it, and I would opt for not taking part in the vote.) So to > be clear, my vote is 1., and the patch gives it substance as part of a > larger proposition providing the most secure option for beta and for > release so far (because after minted there remains to fix needauth). It > just incidentally happens that it does not lock one into removing minted > by providing a better basis for what people voting 3. are trying to > achieve. (In particular Scott, even if the route of 3. is voted for > beta, this patch minus disabling of minted remains an option for 2.3.)
Sorry, but 1. means what it says and not what meaning you want to attach to it. So, you vote for 1. > As for your counting of votes, calling the end of the poll, and deciding > what fits or does not fit proposed options, last time I have checked you > were not release manager :) You don't even deserve an answer here. -- Enrico
