Hi, Rainer wrote: > Can't you apply a patch? I remeber well in that long discussion over a > year ago that you were on of the strong proponents of "it's easy to > patch if something is a small nit"?
Of course I can do that and I am already doing that if necessary. > I just want to understand that change of position, if it is one. No, this is not a change of position. I would _not_ add myself to a re-release request if we would have found a normal bug in rsyslog itself. But in this case the _source_ package is broken. I.e. you cannot build rsyslog (yes, in detail it is only the test suite, but as said test suite is very important for us). > Remember that we held much more serious things (like a non-working > imfile) because of this policy. If that policy is wrong, the whole > idea with 6-week releases is wrong (I admit that was my mayor concern > at that time, and you all convinced me and so I now wonder what's > going on...). I don't remember that at the moment. But the predictable release cycle don't forbid you to issue an out-of-band release if necessary. I.e. if something you define as critical/the heart of the product is broken you should _not_ wait until the next release. If I said something like that this was wrong/not my intention. >From my perspective we depend on the question if a broken test suite is critical or not. I agree with Michael that it is and vote for a re-release. If you and the other disagree, that's fine, then no, do not issue a re-release. -Thomas _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE THAT.
