kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Daniel Rall <dlr@collab.net> writes:
>
>>>Log:
>>>* STATUS: Vote for the idea in r17795, r17811, implementation not reviewed.
>>>
>>>
>>>Modified: branches/1.3.x/STATUS
>>>Url: http://svn.collab.net/viewcvs/svn/branches/1.3.x/STATUS?rev=17853&p1=branches/1.3.x/STATUS&p2=branches/1.3.x/STATUS&r1=17852&r2=17853
>>>==============================================================================
>>>--- branches/1.3.x/STATUS (original)
>>>+++ branches/1.3.x/STATUS Mon Dec 19 13:05:10 2005
>>>@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
>>> http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=109776
>>> Votes:
>>> +1: kou
>>>+ +1: blair (for the idea, implementation not reviewed)
>>
>>HACKING says this would be a +0.
>
>
> I think blair was doing a variant of the "concept +1". I too find the
> whole thing confusing, but never so confusing as to miscount votes.
>
> -Karl
Yes, saying +0 doesn't seem to lend the same weight as a +1 qualifying that no
review has been done.
Regards,
Blair
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Dec 20 01:57:44 2005