On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 11:28 PM, DRC wrote:
>
> The 1.2 branch has now been created. I back-ported 4843 into it as you
> suggested, but please back-port any other stable patches that you think
> need to be in 1.2.
>
OK, I've applied the only two other patches that I wanted to see in 1.2.
Releas
On 2/3/12 12:12 AM, Brian Hinz wrote:
> Sorry, my bad, I thought you had actually branched 1.2 already. I don't
> think this is release ready code, would it make more sense to branch at
> 4840 or 4841, or for me to back out 4842 temporarily and re-apply after
> you branch?
The 1.2 branch has now
Sorry to make this more difficult than it needs to be, but I just committed
r4843 which I would like to backport into 1.2 once it's been branched.
It's an almost trivial code change, but the performance implications of
not clipping are significant enough that I believe it's a justified
complicatio
If this is a simple bug fix, then please explain what bug it fixes.
That's all I'm asking. Looking at the code, it looks to be deeper than
a simple bug fix. For it to be a "bug", it must be reproducible by an
end user. What I'm asking is for steps to reproduce the bug from a
user's point of view
We are considering patch r4841 as a simple bugfix, solving a previous
regression. If it causes additional problems, please let us know.
When it comes to the Java client, we are currently not using that one, so
I have no strong opinion.
Rgds,
Peter
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, DRC wrote:
I hadn't
I can branch at 4840 or 4841 and leave your patch in, but we need to
figure out which is the branch point fairly quickly before someone tries
to create a bug fix for the stable code. I'll also need to bump the
revision in trunk to avoid confusion.
On 2/3/12 12:12 AM, Brian Hinz wrote:
> Sorry, m
Sorry, my bad, I thought you had actually branched 1.2 already. I don't
think this is release ready code, would it make more sense to branch at
4840 or 4841, or for me to back out 4842 temporarily and re-apply after you
branch?
Thanks,
-brian
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:51 AM, DRC wrote:
> I hadn
I hadn't actually branched 1.2 yet, so trunk is still supposed to be
stable. I was waiting for a more reasonable explanation of 4841 from
Pierre before branching, as that patch appears destabilizing as well.
On 2/2/12 11:38 PM, bph...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> Revision: 4842
> htt
