On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Matt Broadstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > No problem. My apologies as well. > > 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 have certainly let it go too long in the last year. But we've cleared some hurdles now, so I think we'll be able to resume faster updates. I've added a qpid-cpp-1.35.1 version to jira, and put QPID-7406 against it. Our jira instance doesn't have a "requested for X" field, but I put a note there to track it. > > 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. > Speaking from a Fedora perspective, I have no objection to adding such a patch. Here's some Fedora documentation I found on that matter: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_simple_patches But I understand that Debian or Ubuntu policy might be different. Justin
