>>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:02:33 +0200, Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> said:
>> I can also live with a double-free during shutdown not really being a >> show-stopper either... let me know and I'll revert til after 5.2.2... Thomas> Since I'm all for keeping the fix, I'd propose to call for votes on Thomas> -coders *if* Wes was calling for backout. I don't really care (too much) when things get committed and when they do not. As long as the results at the time of next publication are agreed upon by at least what I decreed about a year ago to be the minimum number of -coders votes to allow code changes to go in: IE, +3. To reiterate, a change (even small) going into a cvs tree after the first RC candidate has been released should: 1) have a post to -coders asking for acceptability, describing the why's and what not. 2) show the patch, assuming a reasonable posting size 3) asking for support 4) should be ideally committed after: a) 24 hours past post b) got at least 3 in-favor votes over any negatives I don't care as much about #4 since it can be easily reversed if we decide otherwise. It shouldn't be the default, but in the case of the last couple of slips it's probably easier to leave them and reverse if needed than to reverse and then re-commit. It should have been my responsibility for reminding people that we were in lock-down and I failed that. Life took over last Friday and I didn't work almost at all that day, and hence pushed a RC1 on Sunday without the proper fanfare. My fault for not reminding people what a RC1 now means as far as lock-down goes. -- Wes Hardaker Sparta, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
