Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Phippard wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
>>>> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> * r30963: Not technically a blocker, but a pretty big performance
>>>>>> booster. Would be nice to have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Mark and I will look at this.
>>>>>
>>>> I tested this pretty thoroughly on his branch and am in favor of it.
>>>> However, it does not merge cleanly to 1.5.x and requires a backport
>>>> branch.
>>>>
>>> Backport branch r30963-1.5.x created. I "had to" merge several little
>> code formatting and comment-tweak revisions to get a clean merge, but once
>> done, all was well.
>>>
>> STATUS currently has the following votes for this group. I'll cut RC 5
>> after we get another full +1.
>>
>> Votes:
>> +1: cmpilato, hwright
>> +0: markphip (r30963-64 only; +1, but revs don't merge clean)
>
>
> This has been committed, and I believe Hyrum is rolling the RC5, or
> will be soon.
Well...not quite. In testing the bindings prior to rolling, Mark and I
discovered a bug in the ruby bindings. I've committed something which
fixes the problem, but I'd really like some review by people who know
more about the ruby bindings.
After that, we're "Go" for RC 5.
-Hyrum
Received on 2008-05-03 19:38:55 CEST