+1 on cutting the release now, fixing later. Again, remember that there are very few bugs which are *more* critical than our outstanding rubygems issue with 1.3.5.
Daniel On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Antoine Toulme <[email protected]>wrote: > You mean, the patch you attached to the dev list. > I have learnt first hand that patches have harmful side effects. > I'm not sure I want to change anything there. I am not sure having a cycle > because you try to call things in the wrong order should be corrected. > The patch is not attached to a Jira bug, so I lost track of it. > > And most important, I'm out of juice. I need this release out now or I'll > give up. That's me drawing the line in the sand. > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 09:15, Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On 17/6/2010 17:38, Antoine Toulme wrote: > > > >> I think we now have a good understanding of the problem. Mainly, that > this > >> is not a good or valid approach. > >> Rhett pointed at a workaround ; I guess that using an enhance block > would > >> also have fixed the problem. > >> > > But since there is a patch that solves the problem (at least in the short > > term) and doesn't break the current specs; why not include this in the > 1.4 > > release? > > > > Pepijn > > >
