Re: Subject: CFV: New JDK 10 Committer: Erik Österlund (original) (raw)

Mario Torre neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com
Thu Jun 22 16:56:38 UTC 2017

2017-06-22 18:44 GMT+02:00 Daniel D. Daugherty <daniel.daugherty at oracle.com>:

Point of order:

http://openjdk.java.net/projects/#committer-vote The valid votes are "Yes", "Veto" or "Abstain" for this kind of vote. There is no specification for a "No" vote.

You are totally right, I was convinced we had a No vote option too, but of course that's not the case. Nevertheless, what has been said is still valid, the two veto seem to be cast just as a matter of principle, and I don't see a strong argument supporting either one.

Cheers, Mario

pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards: http://endsoftpatents.org/

More information about the jdk10-dev mailing list