On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:30, Phil Pennock <pdp@???> wrote:
> On 2011-10-03 at 19:18 -0400, Phil Pennock wrote:
> > On 2011-10-03 at 20:55 +0000, Matt Justin wrote:
> > > I don't see http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1141 on the list of
> changes for 4.77..
> > >
> > > does that mean it wasn't fixed and is not making 4.77 ?
> >
> > Yes, maybe.
> >
> > It slipped my mind, I'm looking at it now, even though we're now in RC
> > status -- this is an important fix and worth bending the rules for.
>
> The change is sufficiently invasive that it would be more than bending
> the rules. I've updated bug 1141 with what I believe needs to be done,
> but am not willing to make such a change without more substantial
> testing long before a release, so am not prepared to add it now.
>
> Sorry.
>
> There's also a log-via-SQL change which was supposed to happen before
> this release, but didn't happen, and I'm sorry about both omissions.
>
> -Phil
>
>
Hi Phil,
The important questions are:
1. What would you consider as "substantial testing"? Only one person has so
far raised (reminded you about) this issue.
Would you consider his testing and report as substantial or how many
admins are lined up for the testing of this?
2. When do you expect to push out the RELEASE? Can it not wait for (1) to be
done first?
If you ask me, I'd vote for including the change with 4.77. If there is a
bug, it can always be reported. I recognize that voting is never used in
such circumstances, but also believe no law is cast on stone.
--
Best regards,
Odhiambo WASHINGTON,
Nairobi,KE
+254733744121/+254722743223
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I can't hear you -- I'm using the scrambler.
