Ok, I think that's ready to be merged then. Mike's had a look at the PR. On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < [email protected]> wrote:
> Yes - I think simple logging is the best thing for CURATOR-228. > > > On August 30, 2015 at 4:05:52 PM, Cameron McKenzie ([email protected]) > wrote: > > You are indeed correct! I was referring to CURATOR-228. > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> CURATOR-233? Do you mean something else? >> >> >> >> On August 30, 2015 at 3:02:18 PM, Cameron McKenzie ( >> [email protected]) wrote: >> >> What are people's thoughts on CURATOR-233? I think that it may be worth >> merging in the fix that I have done for CURATOR-233 (just logging a >> warning) as this will stop the hard loop occurring in this situation. >> >> It's not a perfect fix by any means, but it's better than the current >> state >> of affairs. Maybe we could use this to close CURATOR-233 and open another >> for a more reliable fix that respects the persistent ephemeral contract? >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > The only outstanding issue on 2.9.0 is CURATOR-233. I’d like to push >> that >> > to 2.9.1 and get a release started. Thoughts? >> > >> > -Jordan >> > >> > >> > >> >> >
