---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/627/#review510
---
Ship it!
Agreed. I'll patch the .NET file if you don't.
- Chug
On 20
> On 2011-04-20 18:04:37, Chug Rolke wrote:
> > 1. To be complete the equality tests must propagate to the .NET binding as
> > well. See patch below.
> >
> > 2. This patch changes the API/ABI a little does it not?
> >For the .NET case assume you have Duration A(100) and Duration B(100).
>
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/627/#review506
---
1. To be complete the equality tests must propagate to the .NET binding
On 04/20/2011 01:14 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 2011-04-20 16:59:07, Alan Conway wrote:
The code looks OK, but do we really need to worry about people setting a TTL of
more than 17 billion years?
Alan Conway wrote:
Actually looking at the BZ, the real issue is giving FOREVER the correct
> On 2011-04-20 16:59:07, Alan Conway wrote:
> > The code looks OK, but do we really need to worry about people setting a
> > TTL of more than 17 billion years?
>
> Alan Conway wrote:
> Actually looking at the BZ, the real issue is giving FOREVER the correct
> special treatment at each ste
> On 2011-04-20 16:59:07, Alan Conway wrote:
> > The code looks OK, but do we really need to worry about people setting a
> > TTL of more than 17 billion years?
Actually looking at the BZ, the real issue is giving FOREVER the correct
special treatment at each step, it's not really an overflow
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/627/#review501
---
Ship it!
The code looks OK, but do we really need to worry about people
