Also, zmq_poll() semantics changed from 2.x -> 3.x for when the poll set's empty. Yes it's a non-sensical use case, but affect's czmq's zloop implementation and I'm sure there's other cases in the wild where users would get an error status now for what used to be a no-op / early return.
https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/403 Thoughts ? On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Lourens Naudé <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi guys, > > Took at stab @ fixing LIBZMQ-409 with > https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq3-x/pull/26 with a backport from > Crossroads I/O (with some additions) . There's more context added as a > comment to https://zeromq.jira.com/browse/LIBZMQ-409 . > > - Lourens > > > On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Stefan de Konink <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Chuck Remes wrote: >> > >> >> Judging by the "critical issues" on the wiki site, most of them are >> associated with 2.2. None of the listed tickets are for 3.2. >> >> >> >> Is it time to push 3.2rc1 to 3.2 final? >> > >> > I still want to provide a test for multipacket pubsub in 3.2. We are >> still >> > unable to get any packets through when using an envelope + payload. >> >> There's also https://zeromq.jira.com/browse/LIBZMQ-409, which I think >> we need to address in 3.2 final. >> >> I'll cut an rc2, seems about time for that. >> >> -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
