On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Justin Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2016 06:31, "Matt Broadstone" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Justin Ross <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Unless I've misunderstood the defect, this one will have to wait. The > RC > > > is under vote, and it doesn't appear to be a regression or a > vulnerability. > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=65146133 > > > - > > > Search for change acceptance criteria > > > > > > > > That's unfortunate. Do you have a timeline for the next release? If the > > last 3 releases are any indicator the cycle tends to be around a year, > > which means I need to maintain another private build of qpid on my PPA. > > Justin, Apologies if I came off harsh in the last email, that wasn't my intention. > If you look, you'll see that it's only the last span that has been a little > over a year. Before that we produced releases three times a year for > several years. > > Yes I was basing my assumptions on the last year (roughly the amount of time I have been using qpidd). If what you're saying is that this issue has been addressed, and we can expect patch released in a more timely fashion, then I think that satisfies my question here. > I don't have a specific plan, but we could do a short term 1.35.1. > > Do you consider it abnormal to carry a patch with an OS package? I do not. > I don't understand how it requires a "private build". > > Well this part is a little trickier. I have packed the last two qpid releases for ubuntu, and intend to do that again for the 1.35.0 release, but I would not expect that package to include a patch that wasn't accepted for the release - would you? To that end, I would have to package another version of the release, and maintain it on my own personal PPA (this is what I referred to as a private build). In fact, the source of my apprehension wrt this bug fix is that I have done just this for a slowly growing patch set over the past year including some issues I've worked through privately with Gordon and was looking for a way to not have to do that anymore. > If I was going to get picky on the subject then: I reported this bug with > a > > potential fix around 3pm the day you announced the RC at 7pm, meaning it > > was all technically mentioned and solved while the code was still in > beta, > > in which case a bugfix would have been an acceptable change :) > > Did you request it for the release, or ask for a delay? I'm sorry if I > missed your request. Mentioning a bug or posting a patch for a bug is not > sufficient by itself. > > No no, of course not, and I wasn't being serious at all here. I was just trying to see if there was any wiggle room for an exception really. Considering the beta slipped by a few weeks I thought there might be some space here. > If you think the process is unclear, I will do my best to improve the > documentation. > > > > > But to be more serious about it, this bug shows that the LVQ in qpid is > > broken imo . So I guess at very least you should update your documents to > > reflect this problem. > > We can add a release note. Please add a comment to QPID-7353 with a > pointer to the Jira. > > Will do. > > > > Regards, > > Matt > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 29/08/16 13:45, Matt Broadstone wrote: > > > > > > > >> Is there any chance this would make it into the release? > > > >> > > > > > > > > That is a question for Justin, as the release manager. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > --------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > >
