>>> On 1/25/2009 at 2:49 PM, in message <20090125214915.ga10...@sajinet.com.pe>,
Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon <care...@sajinet.com.pe> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 08:52:45AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>> Are we finished hashing this whole patch out yet?
> haven't seen many comments from other testers of the simplified patch,
> but considering that it has been included already in the 3.1.1 stable
> package from Gentoo x86, I'd assume it is "hashed out" already.
> Fedora and Debian are also testing patches for their packages AFAIK.
>> Are we ready to apply the current patch to 3.1.2 and release or is there
>> still more discussion going on?
> guess it depends on how you define "current patch" as the backported
> patch has still one hunk that was originally meant to be for gmetad's
> multi request proposed feature that is still under discussion and hasn't
> been committed yet (a second hunk was reverted already as it showed a
> regression in the web frontend while testing the proposed Fedora package
> update that was using it).
> in any case to avoid further delays (even if IMHO not ideal, but better
> than the current situation) committed the backported patch in r1959 for
> ganglia-3.1.
> also committed r1960 to make the new introduced feature (returning and
> empty response instead of the full tree if the request to the interactive
> port is invalid) consistent.

I propose that we tag and roll a testing tarball for 3.1.2 and push it out to 
the testing site.  Let's give it a week and if testing doesn't find any 
regressions in the 3.1.2 tarball, we release it.  Bernard, are you around and 
available to tag and roll a 3.1.2 tarball?  


This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
Ganglia-developers mailing list

Reply via email to