CFV: New Project: s390x Port

[David Holmes]

On 20/05/2016 1:03 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> "same discussion as every year" :)
>
> Please see your comments and Iris' and my replies on the same topic
> back in 2012 when I started a CFV for the PowerPC/AIX project:
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2012-May/002640.html
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2012-May/002647.html

Yeah I re-found that too. :)

> I hope your mail was not intended to be count as a "Veto" :)

Absolutely not. I was initially a bit confused having seen the RFE that 
IBM filed to start a port, and then I saw the CFV with SAP contributing 
a port. I knew there was something missing in the middle. :)

Cheers,
David


> Regards,
> Volker
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:59 PM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 17/05/2016 9:25 PM, dalibor topic wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16.05.2016 22:53, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 17/05/2016 12:43 AM, dalibor topic wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that the discussion already took place on porters-dev:
>>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/porters-dev/2016-May/000542.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pre-discussion perhaps :) Official discussion should have been on the
>>>> discuss list.
>>>
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that a separate discussion on the discuss list is
>>> technically an optional step, though, per
>>> http://openjdk.java.net/projects/#new-project . ;)
>>
>>
>> Yes but I read that as "discussion is optional, but if it happens then it
>> should happen on the general discussion list".
>>
>>>> Also it seems some people are sending their votes to the discuss list
>>>> when they should go to the announce list.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding votes on new Projects
>>> http://openjdk.java.net/projects/#new-project has this to say:
>>>
>>> "Eligible voters cast their vote by sending e-mail to the general
>>> discussion list."
>>
>>
>> Sorry - Yes I misread part of that. I was confused by the sending of the CFV
>> to the announce list and the statement "Replying to this message is
>> sufficient if your mail program honors the Reply-To header." - but there is
>> nothing about setting a reply-to header mentioned anywhere that I can see.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>>
>>> cheers,
>>> dalibor topic