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 day I posted the fix. JAMES, which used to > crash weekly, hasn't been restarted since the fix went in. > Thats the point.. "You" want to backport. Why not ask the others if they want to backport before we dedicide. Thats why i start the VOTE. I think Bernd suggest the right thing.. We should vote for every backport.
I hope everyone is enjoying the holidays and looking forward to the new year. I'm happy with whatever resolution people come to with branching releases and backports and release dates or not. My preference is all development on trunk and then backport if required, but just last week (for my day/night job) I had to fix something on a branch and then deal with merging back to trunk. Release branch handling is a big gray area and we have to balance everyone's needs. I've been pretty frustrated with the group discussion this fall, but it seems like we're having more honest (if painful) discussion and fewer personal attacks. Kudos to everyone to making the discussions about objectives and actions and rarely about who said what. FWIW on the DNS cache woes, I think it sucks but don't think it's been our most biggest stability bug and certainly not our only one. I've turned off the caching on my production box and still have to leave the restart-James cron job running nightly. Maybe I need 8 servers running James instead of this one aged box. :) -- Serge Knystautas Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
