Hi all,
The backward comatibility problem with 2.0.8 leading to release of 2.0.9
yesterday have shown that the collaborative commiting to the 0MQ
source code repo -- while it worked while 0MQ was in immature state --
doesn't work anymore.
Therefore, from now on I am taking the responsibility
On 09/05/2010 08:59 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
Hereby I delegate the responsibility for autotools subsystem and for man
pages to Martin Lucina.
I forgot to include the packaging scripts into the list. For these I
also delegate the responsibility to Martin Lucina.
Martin
Naveen,
Yes, perfect! Sorry if this seems bureaucratic but we're kind of
developing this contribution process.
Did you find this doable?
Regards
Pieter
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Naveen Chawla naveen.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Pieter, is this the sort of thing you're after?
If not, oops. If
Martin,
The versioning contract is a good step forwards. We've come a long
way in just a few months.
Would you update the page at http://www.zeromq.org/docs:policies?
-Pieter
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Martin Sustrik sust...@250bpm.com wrote:
Hi all,
The backward comatibility problem
Hi Brian,
Another reason I would like to get this in to a 2.0.9 release is that
2.1 involves lots of new changes that are likely to make things
unstable for a bit. We are about the deploy some apps to many users
(many thousands of them!) based on the 2.0.x series of zeromq. Thus
bug is the
Naveen,
Thanks, this is useful feedback. We'll write a really clear
explanation of how to do this, and why it's better to submit patches.
-Pieter
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Naveen Chawla naveen.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly? I spent too much time being stuck.
I ended up on some crappy
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Kelly Brock ke...@inocode.com wrote:
Just a thought, it may be a good idea to specifically
state that is the case in the documentation. I.e. If there are no
connections, all messages are simply dropped. Just a little clarification
for the specific case. (I
On 5 September 2010 14:12, Pieter Hintjens p...@imatix.com wrote:
I don't see that 0MQ will ever 'hiccup' and drop messages. You don't
know the start and you don't know the end of a pubsub stream but once
a subscriber starts to get data it's not going to miss anything unless
you are using an
Hi,
So, from now on, all the contributors to zeromq2 repo, to both master
and maint branches -- even those that had direct commit access in the
past -- are going to send patches to the mailing list. I will then apply
them (or reject them) in such a way to ensure that versioning contract
is
Hi all,
due to an autoconf mixup and insufficient testing on my part, the 2.0.9
release tarballs were missing an INSTALL file. At Martin Sustrik's request,
I have regenerated new tarballs and uploaded them to www.zeromq.org.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Martin: This was due to commit
Martin,
sust...@250bpm.com said:
The backward comatibility problem with 2.0.8 leading to release of 2.0.9
yesterday have shown that the collaborative commiting to the 0MQ
source code repo -- while it worked while 0MQ was in immature state --
doesn't work anymore.
Therefore, from now on
Hi,
lestr...@gmail.com said:
So, from now on, all the contributors to zeromq2 repo, to both master
and maint branches -- even those that had direct commit access in the
past -- are going to send patches to the mailing list. I will then apply
them (or reject them) in such a way to ensure
12 matches
Mail list logo
