On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ian Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thinking about it, I believe the original patch had it as a EHOSTUNREACH - > it got changed to a EAGAIN and I don't specifically recall the reason why - > I'll have to look back over the commit history. Changed on June 17th... it seems to me the original name and semantics were good, and the June 17 change broke them without real argumentation. Perhaps we can enforce the C4 "Development Process" rules a little harder. Every pull request with an issue that explains the problem it's solving. There's an open issue on this: https://zeromq.jira.com/browse/LIBZMQ-431. -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
