On Jul 4, 2011 10:18 PM, "Greg Stein" <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2011 1:34 PM, "Hyrum K Wright" <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Philip Martin
> > <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> > > "Bert Huijben" <bert_at_qqmail.nl> writes:
> > >
> > >> The issue Ivan Zhakov is looking at (r1141845, r1142065 and related)
> > >> potentially breaks all current serf (and in some cases neon) clients
> > >> a HTTPv2 server.
> > >>
> > >> (And without that patch serf always retrieves full-texts over HTTPv2)
> > >>
> > >> Please don't call out almost-RCs before we got that worked out :)
> > >
> > > Is there an issue describing the problem?
> > Not that I can see. As per our project-wide consensus regarding
> > branching and releasing and release candidates and such, nothing in
> > the issue tracker means that there isn't a blocking issue.
> Don't be pedantic.
That was probably a bit too flip, but the point is that we want to have
problems *reported*. Saying it doesn't exist, despite one of our devs
*clearly* stating that it *does* ... is just being ridiculous.
We want to ship the best product possible. This mailing list is defined to
be our decision-making focus. It seems incorrect to disregard a reported
problem simply because (for whatever reason) an issue is not in the tracker.
Received on 2011-07-05 05:08:32 CEST