curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jordan Zimmerman <jor...@jordanzimmerman.com>
Subject Re: Status on 2.9.0
Date Mon, 31 Aug 2015 03:25:27 GMT
Yes - I think simple logging is the best thing for CURATOR-228.


On August 30, 2015 at 4:05:52 PM, Cameron McKenzie (mckenzie.cam@gmail.com) wrote:

You are indeed correct! I was referring to CURATOR-228.

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
CURATOR-233? Do you mean something else?



On August 30, 2015 at 3:02:18 PM, Cameron McKenzie (mckenzie.cam@gmail.com) wrote:

What are people's thoughts on CURATOR-233? I think that it may be worth
merging in the fix that I have done for CURATOR-233 (just logging a
warning) as this will stop the hard loop occurring in this situation.

It's not a perfect fix by any means, but it's better than the current state
of affairs. Maybe we could use this to close CURATOR-233 and open another
for a more reliable fix that respects the persistent ephemeral contract?

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:

> The only outstanding issue on 2.9.0 is CURATOR-233. I’d like to push that
> to 2.9.1 and get a release started. Thoughts?
>
> -Jordan
>
>
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message