Ok, I'll spin up an RC shortly. --Rafael
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > Robbie >
