On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:24 AM, <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I plan to bring ZeroMQ into my codebase to start testing out its pub/sub > > capabilities. I had brought in ZeroMQ 2.1 in a former project and found > it a > > bit painful to resolve the uuid dependency on the embedded Linux > platform we > > use. I hear 3.1 no longer contains that dependency and am interested in > > jumping to that revision if it is fairly stable. There are also some > other > > features in 3.1 that I could benefit from. Is there a timeframe as to > when > > 3.1 will be considered the new “stable release”? Are there any big issues > > with it today? > > It's definitely stable enough to develop against, it passes all the > PyZMQ regression tests properly, and the remaining open issues are all > marginal in one way or another. Probably next week I'll cut a stable > release candidate. > PyZMQ makes no effort to test libzmq itself, so I would say that passing pyzmq's tests only gets you "probably not totally broken." It took me about one day of using 3.1.1 to discover a dealbreaker bug for daily use (reported as LIBZMQ-369). I do think think a Python test suite for libzmq itself makes sense, but I don't add tests for libzmq bugs to the pyzmq suite. -MinRK > > -Pieter > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
