On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Humdinger <humdingerb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Well, it wasn't so much a communications problem, but a reading >> comprehension issue... :) >> I quote from the page from when the voting was active: >> >> "About what you are voting for: >> * This vote is about requirements for alpha 1. This means that >> voting in favor for >> something means that you want this feature to be absolutely for sure >> in the alpha. So for >> example, if you vote in favor for # 9 (fully integrate IO scheduler), >> you actually say >> that you want the release blocked until this feature is finished. >> * In this same vain, voting against making a proposal mandatory >> for release, does not >> mean that in the end this feature will not end up in the release. For >> example, if the I/O >> scheduler does not get enough votes to become necessary, but it is >> finished in time, it >> might as well end up in the package. Of course, this does not work >> for bundled software vote." > > Now that sounds indeed clear, but some items don't really fit this > description, like the release coordinator/manager. > Anyway, thanks for your responses, I liked your answers ;-)) > > Bye, > Axel. > > > There's 2 proposals marked as pending due to ties, one was the setting the release date, which I commented on earlier (any comments on that one?), the other is Python. Since Python tied, I suggest we drop it as a requirement but if we get a stable build in time for inclusion then include it. Comments? Andreas was going to take a shot at Python 2.6 but has taken a new job in a new city and will have limited time and internet for the near term. I tried using the 2.5.2 build I made with Mercurial, but Mercurial then went on to fail over 80% of it's tests, so I suspect there's issues with my 2.5.2 build. Anyone else work on Python 2.5.2 recently? -scottmc