Who can help with the GPL v3 effort?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Ben Wing writes:

 > And you just did the same thing again -- you selectively quoted my
 > justification for keeping the v2 headers, simply leaving out the
 > important fact that upgrading the headers to v3 will severely
 > complicate merging between 21.4 and 21.5, which you evidently had no
 > counter-argument against.

Why do I need a counter-argument?  I haven't objected to adding a
file-specific notice to GPLv2-or-later files, and the license material
won't appear in future diffs, so I don't see what you're bitching
about.

In any case from now on we'll need to get confirmation from people who
contribute to 21.5 (assuming that it's under GPLv3 or later) that we
may backport to GPLv2 or later 21.4, and that is a PITA in itself.

The basic problem is not me, though.  It's that the law does not care
about our convenience.  Nor does the FSF.  What else is new?

 > do.  Now it's your turn to act.  You have 24 hours to demonstrate that
 > a release of my gnu-merge workspace as the next beta is imminent.  If
 > not, I'll go ahead and post a major announcement for testers, and
 > barring any unforeseen problems, commit the whole thing to the
 > mainline a couple of days later.

No can do.  I'm going on a 3 day business trip in a couple of hours.

Note that if you carry out your threats, you may need to find a new
release engineer.  If I think there's a GPL violation involved, I
won't touch it.