Re: r17214, JavaHL thread local storeage and reentrant calls

On 11/14/05, Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev@farside.org.uk> wrote:

> Thanks. (HACKING doesn't actually define what a -0 means, or whether
> it's a veto.)

-0 is more of a "I'm not sure this is a good idea" kind of thing.

> In which case, I'll wait until later tomorrow to see if anyone has any
> objections, then merge it into the 1.3 branch. As I understand it,
> a change exclusively under bindings (like this one) only requires a
> single +1 to merge.

Actually, you need one more vote to merge, someone with commit access
to that part of the tree needs to vote at least +0, which would leave
you with the required one +1 and one +0 vote. If I have a chance I'll
try to go over all this stuff once more later today, so I can at least
give you that ;-)

-garrett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 15 00:41:13 2005