[GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call

[Massimiliano Cannata]

Dear all, I went trough the document and it make perfectly sense to me.

Just a minor comment is that we shall probably clearly specify who is
responsible for the mentioned actions: call for soft, hard freeze etc.
Basically who is responsible to recall all to the respect of the mentioned
time-frame.

Maxi

Il giorno Wed Jan 07 2015 at 2:43:33 AM Scott Mitchell <smitch at me.com> ha
scritto:

> Since I'm in there anyway editing a couple of minor grammatical fixes,
> I've deleted that sentence based on this latest exchange plus the fact that
> it makes sense to me. But I'm doing so in the comfort of knowing that my
> edits can be easily reverted, so don't hesitate if there's reason.
>
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 05:35, Moritz Lennert <mlennert at club.worldonline.be>
> wrote:
>
> On 06/01/15 11:25, Martin Landa wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> 2014-12-30 0:29 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler <neteler at osgeo.org>:
>
> I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement.
>
>
> I would also agree with that. It would be reasonable also to set some
> deadline for discussion and then to propose voting. What do you think?
>
>
> http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diff&version=7&old_version=6
>
>
> I did cosmetics changes [1].
>
> I found that a "tbd" is still there.
>
>
> I would suggest to simply delete this sentence. Creating extra branch
> for such purpose seems to be not necessary to me. Any opinion on that?
>
>
> +1
>
> Moritz
>
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> grass-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> grass-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20150107/a9ab0d9f/attachment.html>