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
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 to
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
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 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 regressions in
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 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
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
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
+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,
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
