On 29 April 2015 at 17:38, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/27/2015 01:45 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
>> On 04/27/2015 01:14 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>>> I also added PROTON-858 as a release blocker.
>> I've been trying to get a fix proposal together for that. I'll post it
>> for review as soon as I'm reasonably confident, still seeing some issues
>> at present (not 100% sure they are related, but am assuming so).
> Just to update the status here. Although I have positive reviews for the
> simple patch, I have encountered some issues even with that during stress
> testing.
> I can't say for sure whether these are caused by my change as the test
> showing them up doesn't run long enough without the change. However until I
> know for sure I am not keen to commit it.
> If this is holding up things for the proton-j side, which after all is what
> motivated the release in the first place, I would suggest we continue
> without the fix for PROTON-858.

I think that might be a good idea, certainly I wont argue against it.
If we arent confident in the fix, we might end up needing a respin
that could push things out further.

At the end of the day, we can easily do a 0.9.2 when we think it is
ready. Its possibly also worth saying that even if we didnt do that,
its likely less of an issue for folks using proton-c to just patch the
source they build from, whereas many using proton-j will be doing so
via binaries at maven central and so need us to push a release out to
get the changes.


Reply via email to