Re: Intent to backport OAK-6656 to 1.6 and 1.4 branch

2017-09-13 Thread Vikas Saurabh
Ack. Would continue with the backport then :). On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Chetan Mehrotra wrote: > Its was +0 ;) > Chetan Mehrotra > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Vikas Saurabh > wrote: >> Hi Chetan, >> >> Was your concern a -1

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6656 to 1.6 and 1.4 branch

2017-09-13 Thread Chetan Mehrotra
Its was +0 ;) Chetan Mehrotra On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Vikas Saurabh wrote: > Hi Chetan, > > Was your concern a -1 or a +/- 0? > > Thanks, > Vikas

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6656 to 1.6 and 1.4 branch

2017-09-13 Thread Vikas Saurabh
Hi Chetan, Was your concern a -1 or a +/- 0? Thanks, Vikas

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6656 to 1.6 and 1.4 branch

2017-09-13 Thread Davide Giannella
On 13/09/2017 09:22, Vikas Saurabh wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Chetan Mehrotra > wrote: > >> Would the backport be of use now? As any upgrade I think would happen >> first to initial release from that branch where this fix would not be >> present >

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6656 to 1.6 and 1.4 branch

2017-09-13 Thread Vikas Saurabh
Hi, On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Chetan Mehrotra wrote: > Would the backport be of use now? As any upgrade I think would happen > first to initial release from that branch where this fix would not be > present Well, from arguments pov, I think one can always