On 12/19/06, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sorry I don't know which defect you are talking about.
>
> The memory leak is the main thing, plus I wanted to backport the per-IP
> connection code. I have already done that privately, and have been running
> with those changes since the
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
So I would like to remind all honourable fellow committers to use the
"veto" powers and even the word "veto" with great care.
I'm sorry I already used veto twice for v2.3.
I never used the veto previously, but I think that it is important to
fix possible problems as so
Am Montag, den 18.12.2006, 18:49 -0500 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> > Everyone is willing to work on a bug fix release for 2.3.
>
> I would like to believe that, but so far anything that amounts to having a
> real fix and any real enhancements to the v2.3 codebase has been blocked.
> I'll tell you
On 12/19/06, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Noel J. Bergman schrieb:
> Joachim Draeger wrote:
>
>
>> Noel J. Bergman:
>>
>>> We should (and should have already) released v2.3.1 with the changes
>>>
> that I
>
>>> wanted to make to fix the defect, and to add one other change (the
>>>
> p
Noel J. Bergman schrieb:
> Joachim Draeger wrote:
>
>
>> Noel J. Bergman:
>>
>>> We should (and should have already) released v2.3.1 with the changes
>>>
> that I
>
>>> wanted to make to fix the defect, and to add one other change (the
>>>
> per-IP
>
>>> connections, whi
Noel J. Bergman schrieb:
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
>
>> Cool! I'm happy to know there are others committer testing unreleased
>> code and helping in the hard consolidation process.
>>
>
> You must be misunderstanding. I am running v2.3 plus just a couple of vital
> fixes that you blocked.
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Cool! I'm happy to know there are others committer testing unreleased
> code and helping in the hard consolidation process.
You must be misunderstanding. I am running v2.3 plus just a couple of vital
fixes that you blocked. I do wonder if whom else amongst us *other tha
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Joachim Draeger wrote:
Sorry I don't know which defect you are talking about.
The memory leak is the main thing, plus I wanted to backport the per-IP
connection code. I have already done that privately, and have been running
with those changes since the day I posted the
Joachim Draeger wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman:
> > We should (and should have already) released v2.3.1 with the changes
that I
> > wanted to make to fix the defect, and to add one other change (the
per-IP
> > connections, which is really quite helpful).
> Sorry I don't know which defect you are talkin
Hi Noel,
Am Sonntag, den 17.12.2006, 20:09 -0500 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
Joachim Draeger wrote:
> 1. Backport features from trunk to 2.3 branch (AKA next-minor)
> 2. Create a config/storage compatible release from trunk (AKA next-major)
> 3. Work on a non-compatible release from trunk (AKA nex
Hi Noel,
Am Sonntag, den 17.12.2006, 20:09 -0500 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> Joachim Draeger wrote:
>
> > 1. Backport features from trunk to 2.3 branch (AKA next-minor)
> > 2. Create a config/storage compatible release from trunk (AKA next-major)
> > 3. Work on a non-compatible release from trunk
Joachim Draeger wrote:
> 1. Backport features from trunk to 2.3 branch (AKA next-minor)
> 2. Create a config/storage compatible release from trunk (AKA next-major)
> 3. Work on a non-compatible release from trunk (AKA next-greater)
Why only one?
We should (and should have already) released v2.3.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> I would have put out JAMES 2.3.1 over a month ago were it not for
> obstructions. JAMES 2.3.0 has a critical defect that I fixed, but
> Stefano vetoed the change
This is a statement of fact, not an accusation, nor an implication of
anything other than the fact. Nor shou
> > 1. Backport features from trunk to 2.3 branch (AKA next-minor):
> +0 I see no need for such a release. If we want to make a release
> soon then we should release a 2.3.1 with only should contain bugfixes.
I would have put out JAMES 2.3.1 over a month ago were it not for
obstructions. JAMES 2.
Joachim Draeger wrote:
Hi all,
Because something went wrong I think we need a cut and a complete restart of
discussion / collecting opinions. Because I suppose everything has already been
said, it should be possible to finish this part soon.
AFAIK there have only been mentioned three different
Am Sonntag, den 17.12.2006, 09:32 +0100 schrieb Joachim Draeger:
> 1. Backport features from trunk to 2.3 branch (AKA next-minor)
> - this includes only backporting and testing, a release may be done
>very soon
This is possibly the safest way of releasing a few features very quickly
Hi Joachim,
here are my VOTES (?) :-)
1. Backport features from trunk to 2.3 branch (AKA next-minor):
+0 I see no need for such a release. If we want to make a release soon then we
should release a 2.3.1 with only should contain bugfixes.
2. Create a config/storage compatible release from tru
17 matches
Mail list logo
