Github user rhs commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/40#issuecomment-118681852
FYI, I merged this onto trunk after landing the reactor branch.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
Github user rhs commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/34#issuecomment-108444308
Hi Preston, sorry to take so long to look at this.
My impulse here would be to avoid using a checked exception for
HandlerException. I generally follow the
Github user rhs commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/29#issuecomment-99635551
Given my recent rant about new development on master, let's try pulling
this in on a branch first. I've create the proton-j-reactor branch. If you can
resubm
Github user rhs commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/26#issuecomment-99432258
Looks good to me. On the struct initialization stuff, it might be worth
seeing if we can make gcc turn those into errors if it causes problems on other
compilers
Github user rhs commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/28#issuecomment-99428883
Fixing the prefix in the tarball makes sense to me, however some of the
other changes do not. The release process is supposed to proceed from a signed
tag, which means
Github user rhs commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/28#discussion_r29751867
--- Diff: bin/export.sh ---
@@ -54,15 +65,18 @@ WORKDIR=$(mktemp -d)
##
(
cd ${SRC}
-TAG=$(git describe --tags --always
Github user rhs commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/23#issuecomment-97093665
For the record, I tried making the test assertion more specific, but it is
difficult to come up with an assertion that accommodates the asynchronous
behavior and isn&#
Github user rhs commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/23#issuecomment-97009507
Hmm, I'm not sure how useful the trace is since it is once where all the
tests passed. Any chance you could grab one where the tests fail?
Thinking a bit mo
Github user rhs commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/23#issuecomment-96734626
I'm a little puzzled as to why the test change would be necessary. Pump has
been written to keep looping until there is no I/O left to perform for any of
its messe
Github user rhs commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/22#issuecomment-95922186
+1
As a general note I think it's good to try to test changes to
install/readme type stuff on people who aren't already intimately familiar with
prot
Github user rhs commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/20#issuecomment-95188769
Looks good to me.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this
Github user rhs commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/21#issuecomment-94755563
+1 from me
Initially I thought this wouldn't account for detach properly, but looking
at the code I managed to convince myself that it will. If you have
Github user rhs commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/19#issuecomment-94438477
@astitcher: do you want to wait until PROTON-334 lands to pull this in
given the conflict you mention?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
Github user rhs commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/17#issuecomment-94437344
Looks good to me, assuming all the tests pass and what not, I'm +1.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appe
Github user rhs commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/14#issuecomment-88009935
FYI I've added the updated tarballs for 0.9
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If
Github user rhs commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/14#issuecomment-87651630
+1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The doc issue should be fixed on trunk. I'll see if anymore
> > > > > problems come
> > > > > up.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oops, hit send too soon... I'll see if a
17 matches
Mail list logo
