> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:33:43 -0400, Robert Story
> said:
RS> Probably not, because I doubt anyone is actively looking into
RS> it. Part of the reason for the cfv was to see if it motivated anyone
RS> to look into the v3 case.
Yeah, I'd vote that we can't stop a release for it. In par
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:55:47 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> On 26 March 2010 15:27, Robert Story wrote:
DS> > This is a call for votes on delaying the current pending releases until a
DS> > protocol bug can be fixed. I don't have a patch, but I think a protocol
bug
DS> > should be a show stopper.
DS> [..
On 26 March 2010 15:27, Robert Story wrote:
> This is a call for votes on delaying the current pending releases until a
> protocol bug can be fixed. I don't have a patch, but I think a protocol bug
> should be a show stopper.
I'm sort-of-sympathetic to that position.
It would certainly seem sens
Robert Story wrote:
> NOTE: I'm not calling for a vote on this particular patch, but on whether or
> not the releases should be delayed until a proper fix can be found.
Does the bug exist in the previously released version? If so, it's not
a new bug, so I don't see it as a show-stopper.
If it'
This is a call for votes on delaying the current pending releases until a
protocol bug can be fixed. I don't have a patch, but I think a protocol bug
should be a show stopper.
It seems that when a message response exceeds session->sndMsgMaxSize or
transport->msgMaxSize, it is simply dropped. Sect
