On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:12:58AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On May 8, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> >OK, we all know we get some embarrassing regressions in our new
> >releases. PR#39490 in 1.3.35.
>
> That is an unexpected and unwelcome regression. If I had
> known about it I wo
Jim Jagielski wrote:
In any case, this is notice that I will be RM for 1.3.36
Thanks for voulenteering :)
My point in the earlier thread is that I'll make a 1.3.36 binary for
windows, leave it on the mirror for three days. But will then pull
down that binary, and notes about 1.3, leaving use
There are several bug reports due to the updated Include
code (eg: 39490, 39513 and 39516). Looks like we got bitten
by what we usually get bitten by: last minute updates :(
My plan is that we release 1.3.36 very soon to address this.
I'd prefer a fix that (1) doesn't replicate lots of code
and (
What I did is reversed #396294... this keeps HEAD
in a non-regressed state and gives us time to
come up with a full fix.
+1 here as well, but could you attach this to both bugs and get confirmation
that the double-free and wildcards again act as expected for our reporters
after applying the patch?
Bill
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd prefer just fixing the regression and keeping
both behaviors :)
+1
On May 8, 2006, at
I'd prefer just fixing the regression and keeping
both behaviors :)
+1
On May 8, 2006, at 10:45 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:12:58AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
That is an unexpected and unwelcome regression.
Yep, my bad, I never had such a block in my testing lar
On Mon, May 8, 2006 1:36 pm, Nick Kew wrote:
> We should do better than leaving the users to rediscover and deal with
> regressions themselves, once we know there's a problem. Can I suggest
> an Errata page, to list *all* known regressions in current/recent
> versions,
> linked from the main page
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 03:45:21PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> Yep, my bad, I never had such a block in my testing largely because I
> didn't even know 1.3.x had that feature, *sigh*, it's not even
> documented and I can't see it in a changelog and it didn't have that
> functionality when I f
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:12:58AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> That is an unexpected and unwelcome regression.
Yep, my bad, I never had such a block in my testing largely because I
didn't even know 1.3.x had that feature, *sigh*, it's not even
documented and I can't see it in a changelog and it
On Monday 08 May 2006 14:56, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
> On Mon, 8 May 2006, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >> We should do better than leaving the users to rediscover and deal with
> >> regressions themselves, once we know there's a problem. Can I suggest
> >> an Errata page, to list *all* known regression
On May 8, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
OK, we all know we get some embarrassing regressions in our new
releases. PR#39490 in 1.3.35.
That is an unexpected and unwelcome regression. If I had
known about it I would have vetoed the patch. I'd be willing
to actually release a 1.3.36 simply
On Mon, 8 May 2006, Jeff Trawick wrote:
We should do better than leaving the users to rediscover and deal with
regressions themselves, once we know there's a problem. Can I suggest
an Errata page, to list *all* known regressions in current/recent versions,
linked from the main page alongside "D
On 5/8/06, Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, we all know we get some embarrassing regressions in our new
releases. PR#39490 in 1.3.35. Or 2.0.55 being effectively unusable
in a proxy due to PR#37145. Look at the number of duplicates of
37145 - that's a lot of people with the confidence t
OK, we all know we get some embarrassing regressions in our new
releases. PR#39490 in 1.3.35. Or 2.0.55 being effectively unusable
in a proxy due to PR#37145. Look at the number of duplicates of
37145 - that's a lot of people with the confidence to report it,
and who didn't find it 'cos it's mar
14 matches
Mail list logo
