I'm OK with Guillames updated patch idea. many thanks david jencks
On Mar 11, 2014, at 1:50 AM, David Bosschaert <david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would really like to start getting this release out, any comments on > Guillaume's updated patch? > If nobody has any comments I can just apply it and get the release > process rolling. > > Cheers, > > David > > On 24 February 2014 14:07, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> wrote: >> I just proposed a patch for FELIX-4190, so comments are welcomed. >> >> >> 2014-02-24 9:50 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org>: >> >>> Do you have a patch that you could attach to FELIX-3687 that I could look >>> at ? >>> Again, I have no problems reverting my patch, but I'd like FELIX-3687 / >>> FELIX-4190 to be fixed in some way or another, preferably the best one ... >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Guillaume >>> >>> >>> 2014-02-23 19:25 GMT+01:00 David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>: >>> >>> As I've said before, I sort of need some advice on how to proceed to fix >>>> the deadlock. I'm slightly in favor of just rolling back Guillaume's fix >>>> since it is definitely not spec compliant. Whether the deadlock is more >>>> spec compliant is certainly debatable. >>>> >>>> david jencks >>>> >>>> On Feb 23, 2014, at 8:14 AM, David Bosschaert <david.bosscha...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> It's been a while since this thread was started. I see that there is a >>>>> desire to improve on the locking, but nothing has happened in that >>>>> area over the past month. >>>>> I was thinking to start putting together a release early March, since >>>>> it will be nice to have R5 core support in a release. If we can get >>>>> the locking code improved before that then great, but was thinking >>>>> that if nothing has happened there we should postpone >>>>> FELIX-3687/FELIX-4190 to a later release? >>>>> >>>>> Thought anyone? >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> On 30 January 2014 08:53, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-01-18 David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope that someone cleans up the mess around >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-3687 >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4190 >>>>>>> before a release candidate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the first issue I proposed a patch, Richard pointed out a problem, >>>> and >>>>>>> I suggested a possible solution and haven't gotten any comments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the 2nd issue Guillaume committed a fix that is invalid and AFAIK >>>> it >>>>>>> has not been corrected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>> david jencks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 17, 2014, at 8:40 AM, David Bosschaert < >>>> david.bosscha...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 17 January 2014 16:16, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> +1 for a new framework release, it would be great to have full R5 >>>>>>> support, >>>>>>>>> but if that is not supposed to happen soon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Full disclosure: >>>>>>>> I tried my hand on those resolver related open issues, but had the >>>>>>>> feeling that I didn't understand the Felix code well enough for it. >>>>>>>> The resolver is a pretty complex beast, especially since it's >>>>>>>> recursive/re-entrant and I found that fixing one little issue would >>>>>>>> cause tons of other things to fall over elsewhere ;) In the end I >>>>>>>> often came up with a patchwork of fixes for one resolver CT test >>>>>>>> failure where I had the feeling that it could be done more elegantly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so in the end I abandoned my attempts here... I think those remaining >>>>>>>> resolver issues are for someone who really knows the felix resolver >>>>>>>> code inside out :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>
