On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Daniel Lowrey <rdlow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi, > >> > >> That's a bad thing we need to fix ASAP. > >> > >> I think for 5.6.1 we'll revert it , if not, we'll need an RC2, which > >> is something we usually don't do (but as this could involve security, > >> we may do it). > >> The fix can be merged to 5.5.18RC1, next week, to have an RC cycle if > >> not part of a 5.6.1RC2 (tag is tomorrow) > >> > >> 5.6 and 5.5 actually overlap in the release weeks. 5.6 is planned on > >> odd weeks whereas 5.5 is on even weeks. > >> > >> Waiting for Ferenc's advice anyway. > >> > >> Julien.P > > > >I have no issues with reverting at this point as that's the best route to > >get stable releases back on track. I thought I had fixed some really old > >bugs with those commits but the medicine turned out to be worse than the > >disease. My apologies again for letting those problems sneak into releases > >:/ > > I've got the necessary fixes lined up at this point, I just need to know > how you guys would prefer to proceed on this. > > I can commit the relevant changes to 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 and double-check with > RMs to ensure they make it into this next set of releases or we can revert > the previous commits and forget about the bug fixes altogether. > > Just let me know which you prefer. Thanks. > hi, I would prefer reverting the regression from 5.6.1, and I would be fine having the proper fix later on, but I think it would be nice if we could keep that off from the stable branches until we can validate (feedback from the Horde guys would be nice but it would really help a ton if we could have tests for both the original problem this was intended to fix and for the regression introduced while doing so) that the patch is now proper (maybe keeping it in a pull request in the meanwhile). What do you think? -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
