I have a candidate proton-j change that I'd like to see in a JMS client release, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-1077, so I'd be onboard with doing a 0.11.1 to get that too. Anyone else have things warranting inclusion in a 0.11.1?
If it were looking to be quick, I'd wait for it to use in the 0.7.0 JMS client release (which I've delayed while figuring out QPIDJMS-139), but otherwise I'd just put it into the next release. Robbie On 1 December 2015 at 23:30, aconway <[email protected]> wrote: > The ruby binding was broken in the 0.11 release by a mistake that was > not caught in automated testing. I've fixed the problem and improved > the automated tests, I think this might deserve a 0.11.1 as ruby is > unusable in the 0.11 release which is a severe regression. > > The fix is on the 0.11.x branch: > > commit 0af481e09827e88addcb3474edae9780d3449ead > Author: Alan Conway <[email protected]> > Commit: Alan Conway <[email protected]> > > PROTON-1059: ruby binding broken in 0.11 release and on master > > Re-organized swig binding to avoid use of the pre-processor in > %inline sections. > Now works with ccache and non-ccache swig. > > NOTE: According to ccache-swig man page: "Known problems are using > preprocessor directives within %inline blocks and the use of > ’#pragma SWIG’." > This includes using macros in an %inline section. > > Added automatic example test, needs extension to cover all > examples. > Updated option and error handling in some examples to support auto > -testing. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
