On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Adam Kocoloski<[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know if it's a regression. My logic was that we don't want to do a > release that fails our own test suite. I think it will be less work down the > line if we just fix it tonight. Cheers, >
Agreed. I'm sick of failing tests in 0.9 and this should be easy to fix. Thanks guys. > Adam > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 29, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Damien Katz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Unless this is a regression, I think we shouldn't hold up 0.9.1 for this. >> We can add the fix to the branch, and if we do a 0.9.2 it will be there. >> >> -Damien >> >> On Jun 29, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Paul Davis wrote: >> >>> Like I said on the ticket, unless I'm mistaken, _restart only exists >>> for testing purposes. This fix is more about fixing the test so that >>> people aren't alarmed which to me doesn't change actual behavior as >>> most people shouldn't be hitting _restart outside of test suites. >>> >>> As for the mechanics of doing a vote, I'd just wait for those that >>> expressed concern about the test case failing to verify that a new >>> 0.9.1 tarball doesn't fail and if so then move on with our lives. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Noah Slater<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 02:47:25PM -0400, Adam Kocoloski wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We don't necessarily need to hold up 0.9.1 while we discuss the >>>>> behavior >>>>> of /_restart, but I think it's very likely that the implementation of >>>>> /_restart will change substantially in the near future. I would go so >>>>> far as to recommend that people not use the /_restart feature in 0.9.1 >>>>> and below. Best, >>>> >>>> Jan, Chris, Damien, Chris, Paul, everyone else? Thoughts? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater >>>> >> > -- Chris Anderson http://jchrisa.net http://couch.io
