My thoughts and comments that I did not want to put as part of the
results message:
It seems like this voting revealed two mindsets - one wants quick and
dirty experimental changes with low bar for acceptance that may be
streamed up from a single big organization that is probably paid for
the amou
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 1:45 AM Dmitri Shilov wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. Contributing Guidelines with hints for Reviewers.
> > >
> > > > We are adding additional section for Reviewers to Contributing
> > > > Guidelines in order to provide checklist and complementary set of
> > > > rules that s
S unclear how to vote. Reply to any reply? With different formatting
and (mis)quotes? So i will not quote and you can sort it out I hope!!
TimH: +1 to all - on the basis that if this doesn't work out quite right
it will be reviewed and changed. Best to try something like this than
not - it
Ladies and Gentlemen, 3h to voting close :-P
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
Hi all,
I was going to reply (or maybe I did reply in another thread?) but I don't
see it here now. Anyway I'm with you. Even though I would like to see LTS
releases (eventually), I agree that we need to get more organized first.
Improving our automated testing (on real hardware!) should definitel
Hi all,
I will close the vote early since there is a strong desire not to start the
LTS releases and I will restart the topic in the future
Bets regards
Alin
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 10:45 PM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:08 AM Alin Jerpelea wrote:
> > This vote proposes to
