On 4/15/15 9:20 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> The blockers in the STATUS file are now merged. This leaves Issue #4560 and
> Bert's 2 changes that can't go into 1.9.1 or later. Bert's changes look like
> there's a significant possibility they will be approved soon. I was somewhat
> hoping to roll the RC1 today but I think I'll wait a bit longer for those two
> changes.
These are approved now. There's a new one but I'm going to punt on it. If it
gets approved and we have an RC2 (probably will) then maybe it will make it
anyway. But not going to hold up the process for that.
> However, I think we should just punt on Issue #4560. It looks to me like
> either a documentation bug or an implementation bug. The contents of a hash
> are not something that I'm inclined to believe should hold up a release. So if
> someone knowledge on this issue can chime in and give some opinions it would be
> appreciated.
This has been resolved and nominated for backport. Need to get it approved.
> The other issue that exists but isn't really documented in STATUS or the issue
> tracker right now is the issue with SWIG 3.0.3+ and the Python bindings. We
> discussed this on IRC today. We have a few options available to us. Make
> configure refuse to work with SWIG 3.0.3+, putting some somewhat ugly changes
> into the bindings to deal with the problem, or doing nothing and telling people
> to use the generated sources included with the tarball if they have a newer
> SWIG. My inclination is not to hold up RC1 for this. It is something we can
> put in subsequent RCs if we have them or subsequent 1.9.x releases.
If someone doesn't beat me to it I'm going to block the use of SWIG 3 for now
and adjust our release process to use the most recent SWIG 2 version for the
pre-generated sources. If we find solutions to this we can loosen this back up
in a subsequent 1.9.x release.
So once the pending backports are approved I'll roll a RC1.
Received on 2015-04-17 23:42:32 CEST