Well I would argue that it should be more seriously considered... I view 31718 and 31649 as fixing issues that are subtly more serious than people might initially suspect.
The fix for 31649 I feel is sufficiently low risk that we can and I believe should go ahead with it. The fix for 31718 - assuming that we get confirmation from Oleg - is another one that should probably go in... either that or a release of remoting with PR#41 reverted but I think PR#65 is less risk (assuming that it works that is) On 24 November 2015 at 10:52, Daniel Beck <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 24.11.2015, at 11:31, Stephen Connolly <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > What was your reason for rejecting JENKINS-31649? > > If I had to guess I'd say no soaking. This hasn't even been released in > main line yet (no 1.639 this week). > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Jenkins Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/FC1EE375-DD59-4219-A55E-03D17FA07C04%40beckweb.net > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CA%2BnPnMyicm7s54N1iiH_jbWeSh8DH2e_hLHWsQ0hGhYJ3ra1NA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
