Ack! Apologies, apologies. I will make time for an RC this week.
On Sunday, August 30, 2015, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > You are indeed correct! I was referring to CURATOR-228. > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < > [email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > CURATOR-233? Do you mean something else? > > > > > > > > On August 30, 2015 at 3:02:18 PM, Cameron McKenzie ( > [email protected] <javascript:;>) > > wrote: > > > > What are people's thoughts on CURATOR-233? I think that it may be worth > > merging in the fix that I have done for CURATOR-233 (just logging a > > warning) as this will stop the hard loop occurring in this situation. > > > > It's not a perfect fix by any means, but it's better than the current > > state > > of affairs. Maybe we could use this to close CURATOR-233 and open another > > for a more reliable fix that respects the persistent ephemeral contract? > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < > > [email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > The only outstanding issue on 2.9.0 is CURATOR-233. I’d like to push > > that > > > to 2.9.1 and get a release started. Thoughts? > > > > > > -Jordan > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
