[core-workflow] Final chance to express opinion on history rewrite for issue #s

[Brett Cannon]

As of right now Senthil is (I'm assuming) generating another test repo
right now to see the results. If we're happy with the output then we will
go with it, else we will skip the rewrite. So you're not too late as in a
final decision has been made, but then you could argue you're too early
based on how this test goes. :)

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 at 15:00 Yury Selivanov <yselivanov.ml at gmail.com> wrote:

> If it's not too late my opinion is `-1`.  I agree with MAL.
>
> Yury
>
> On 2017-02-09 12:37 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > +1: Nick, Senthil, Chris
> > +0: ...
> > -0: Martin, Brett
> > -1: Naoki, Berker
> >
> > (Maciej was positive but didn't say +1 or +0; Martin said -0.5 which
> isn't
> > a valid vote, so I rounded up for him; I'm personally on the fence so
> > voting conservatively now but can switch that view)
> >
> > If you have an opinion please express them now so Senthil has a chance to
> > test this today before we do the official move tomorrow. Otherwise
> Senthil
> > and I will make the final decision ourselves.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > core-workflow mailing list
> > core-workflow at python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow
> > This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct:
> https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
>
> _______________________________________________
> core-workflow mailing list
> core-workflow at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow
> This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct:
> https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/attachments/20170209/6fd3ff1d/attachment-0001.html>