On 04.11.2014 17:58, Branko Čibej wrote:
> You still have, and always will have, the option to raise a veto. With
> arguments. About specific problems in the code. I've asked you to do
> that uncountable times. So now please don't try to hide behind
> community decisions and raise that veto already
On 04.11.2014 15:40, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 3 November 2014 18:15, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> There was some talk in the past about "voting" to keep log-addressing on
>> trunk. To put it bluntly: we don't do that, we've never done that, and I
>> don't want to create a precedent that turns our consens
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 3 November 2014 18:15, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > There was some talk in the past about "voting" to keep log-addressing on
> > trunk. To put it bluntly: we don't do that, we've never done that, and I
> > don't want to create a precedent that t
On 3 November 2014 18:15, Branko Čibej wrote:
> There was some talk in the past about "voting" to keep log-addressing on
> trunk. To put it bluntly: we don't do that, we've never done that, and I
> don't want to create a precedent that turns our consensus-based process
> into a sham.
I think we s
On 30 September 2014 20:01, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 26 September 2014 20:34, Stefan Fuhrmann
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
[...]
>> Not being Mike, here is my opinion anyway: I'm +1 on your proposal.
>> In fact, I had planned to call for exactly that vote at som
5 matches
Mail list logo
