On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Matt Johnston <m...@ucc.asn.au> wrote: > On Wed 11/5/2016, at 11:55 pm, Thomas De Schampheleire > <patrickdeping...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I expect the next release will be in perhaps a month's >>> time - it could be longer though. >> >> Is there a certain strategy with respect to timing of releases? Could >> you describe it? >> >> It seems a long time to me to wait a month before releasing a bug fix >> of this type (100% CPU load). Meanwhile we can of course apply your >> patch explicitly, but other users may be experiencing the same and may >> not be aware of this fix. > > Hi Thomas, > > Releases usually occur once sufficient new CHANGES items have accumulated, > around a dozen or so is the trend. So far since 2016.73 there are about 5. > For the next release I intend to sort out being able to build without sha1, > it also needs some more thorough testing of the #ifdef->#if changes. > > If there's an important fix then I'll sometimes make a smaller release. How > frequently have you seen the 100% CPU rekey issue? As far as I can tell the > bug's been present since 2007 with no other reports, which is why I was > leaving it for the next release.
Thanks for the feedback. The issue was seen consistently in a specific validation scenario, but other than that we do not see it indeed. I have applied the patch for now, and we will update to the new release when it's ready. Thanks for your support, Thomas
