On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 08:42:14 -0500, Bill Fenner fen...@gmail.com said:
BF One proposal for an addition could be regressions from the previous
BF major release. I upgraded our system from 5.5 to 5.6 and found at
BF least 3 regressions (tcpConnTable, replies on multihomed hosts (i.e.,
BF routers)
On Dec 27, 2010, at 12:12 PM, Wes Hardaker harda...@users.sourceforge.net
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 08:42:14 -0500, Bill Fenner fen...@gmail.com said:
BF One proposal for an addition could be regressions from the previous
BF major release. I upgraded our system from 5.5 to 5.6 and found at
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:19:16 -0500, Bill Fenner fen...@gmail.com said:
BF Whether or not regression testing is feasible is a different issue
BF than whether a regression is considered to be a ship-stopper.
That's a fair point. I'll make sure we discuss it during the meeting.
It is a slippery
On Dec 22, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Dave Shield d.t.shi...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:
Maybe we need to review our definitions of show stopper at
next month's admin meeting.
One proposal for an addition could be regressions from the previous
major release. I upgraded our system from 5.5 to 5.6 and found at
On 22 December 2010 04:42, Wes Hardaker harda...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
We actually need two votes now per patch now:
- 5.5.1 (now in pre1)
+1(though I'd be tempted to set the two lengths
at the start of the loop, rather than the end)
- 5.6.1 (now in rc1)
Hmm this
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Dave Shield d.t.shi...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:
On 22 December 2010 04:42, Wes Hardaker harda...@users.sourceforge.net
wrote:
- 5.6.1 (now in rc1)
Hmm this isn't really a show-stopper, so strictly speaking
shouldn't be applied.
It's somehow a
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:28:56 + Dave wrote:
DS On 22 December 2010 04:42, Wes Hardaker harda...@users.sourceforge.net
wrote:
DS We actually need two votes now per patch now:
DS
DS - 5.5.1 (now in pre1)
DS
DS +1(though I'd be tempted to set the two lengths
DS at the start of
On 22 December 2010 16:13, Robert Story rst...@freesnmp.com wrote:
DS - 5.6.1 (now in rc1)
DS
DS Hmm this isn't really a show-stopper, so strictly speaking
DS shouldn't be applied.
I dunno... I think broken AgentX processing is a pretty big deal.
But remember the definition of show
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:55:49 +, Dave Shield
d.t.shi...@liverpool.ac.uk said:
DS Unless I've missed something, the effects of this particular problem
DS don't match any of these three cases. (I believe it results in wrong
DS or missing information - though I haven't been paying much
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 07:34:44 -0500, Bill Fenner fen...@gmail.com said:
BF It's somehow a regression against net-snmp 5.5, so IMO it is more
BF important for 5.6. I can't explain what is different in 5.5 that it
BF worked with the same code, but it did.
I suspect luck was involved. I suspect
On 22 December 2010 21:51, Wes Hardaker harda...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
DS Maybe we need to review our definitions of show stopper at
DS next month's admin meeting.
Probably a worthy discussion.
I've added this to the agenda.
(Having first created an agenda to add it to :-))
Dave
Details:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=3141462group_id=12694atid=312694
Patch (attached)
We actually need two votes now per patch now:
- 5.6.1 (now in rc1)
- 5.5.1 (now in pre1)
I'm a yes for both. Though 5.6.1 is a harder call.
--
Wes Hardaker
Please mail all
12 matches
Mail list logo
