Sorry for the delay, I will test and vote tomorrow. On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Randall Leeds <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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 >
