On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 06:17, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Oct 28, 2011, at 14:49 , Benoit Chesneau wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> Benoit, unless we abort round 3, no release note can be added until > >>> the next release. > >>> > >> That's why wanted to get opinions from others devs. But noone looks > >> interested by this problem. > >> > >> If most are thinking this is a none issue, I would be quite > >> disappointed but that's OK. I would prefer to give all the information > >> to the user anyway and if it requires we go for a quick round 4, I > >> would prefer to follow that way. > > > > As far as I understand, this is an edge case and I am not worried to not > > have a note in that in the Readme for 1.1.1. > > > > Cheers > > Jan > > -- > > > > > > mmm ok, thanks for the feedback. > > I'm +0 (and that's the first time among releases) . I will oopen a > ticket about that. I'm not sure this is an edge case or not. I don't > understand why it works or not, and why after 500 loop on restart > etc.. > I'm sorry I haven't been more helpful with this, Benoit, but I don't have the hardware to test it. Since I've only heard a repro case involving /_restart I'm not worried enough about a release without a note to retract my +1. However, much respect for your +0. That sounds like the right thing. I'm glad it doesn't bother you enough for a -1. I would be more comfortable if we could verify that /_restart is the only reliable way to trigger this. I'll go back and read about the changes and see if there's any way I can reason that out from the armchair. -Randall
