On 03/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > On 03/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> sebb wrote:
> >> > On 03/01/2010, sebb wrote:
> >> >> On 02/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> >> > sebb wrote:
> >> >> > > On 01/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> >> > >> Phil Steitz wrote
sebb wrote:
> On 03/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>> > On 03/01/2010, sebb wrote:
>> >> On 02/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> >> > sebb wrote:
>> >> > > On 01/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> >> > >> Phil Steitz wrote:
>> >> > >> > sebb wrote:
>> >> > >> >> On 31/12/
On 03/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > On 03/01/2010, sebb wrote:
> >> On 02/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> > sebb wrote:
> >> > > On 01/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> > >> Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> > >> > sebb wrote:
> >> > >> >> On 31/12/2009, Phil Steitz wro
sebb wrote:
> On 03/01/2010, sebb wrote:
>> On 02/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> > sebb wrote:
>> > > On 01/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> > >> Phil Steitz wrote:
>> > >> > sebb wrote:
>> > >> >> On 31/12/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> > >> >>> Comments have not changed sebb's -1, so
sebb wrote:
> On 02/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>> > On 01/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> >> Phil Steitz wrote:
>> >> > sebb wrote:
>> >> >> On 31/12/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> >> >>> Comments have not changed sebb's -1, so I am going to consider this
>> >> >>> a faile
On 03/01/2010, sebb wrote:
> On 02/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> > > On 01/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > >> Phil Steitz wrote:
> > >> > sebb wrote:
> > >> >> On 31/12/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > >> >>> Comments have not changed sebb's -1, so I am going to consid
On 02/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > On 01/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> > sebb wrote:
> >> >> On 31/12/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> >>> Comments have not changed sebb's -1, so I am going to consider this
> >> >>> a failed VOTE and roll anoth
sebb wrote:
> On 01/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Phil Steitz wrote:
>> > sebb wrote:
>> >> On 31/12/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> >>> Comments have not changed sebb's -1, so I am going to consider this
>> >>> a failed VOTE and roll another RC with documentation fixes already
>> >>> made in
On 01/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Phil Steitz wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> >> On 31/12/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >>> Comments have not changed sebb's -1, so I am going to consider this
> >>> a failed VOTE and roll another RC with documentation fixes already
> >>> made included and attempt a
Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>> On 31/12/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> Comments have not changed sebb's -1, so I am going to consider this
>>> a failed VOTE and roll another RC with documentation fixes already
>>> made included and attempt at clearer release notes and README.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> sebb wrote:
>> On 31/12/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> Comments have not changed sebb's -1, so I am going to consider this
>>> a failed VOTE and roll another RC with documentation fixes already
>>> made included and attempt at clearer release notes and README.
>>>
>>> Than
sebb wrote:
> On 31/12/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Comments have not changed sebb's -1, so I am going to consider this
>> a failed VOTE and roll another RC with documentation fixes already
>> made included and attempt at clearer release notes and README.
>>
>> Thanks, all for review and sorry t
On 31/12/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Comments have not changed sebb's -1, so I am going to consider this
> a failed VOTE and roll another RC with documentation fixes already
> made included and attempt at clearer release notes and README.
>
> Thanks, all for review and sorry to take so long to g
Comments have not changed sebb's -1, so I am going to consider this
a failed VOTE and roll another RC with documentation fixes already
made included and attempt at clearer release notes and README.
Thanks, all for review and sorry to take so long to get this right.
Phil
Phil Steitz wrote:
> Hope
14 matches
Mail list logo