qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Ross <justin.r...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: released outcome
Date Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:36:08 GMT
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Matt Broadstone <mbroadst@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Justin Ross <justin.ross@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 29, 2016 06:31, "Matt Broadstone" <mbroadst@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Justin Ross <justin.ross@gmail.com>
> > 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

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