On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:04 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> > wrote: > > On 01/06/2011 03:48 PM, Stefan Küng wrote: > >> On 06.01.2011 21:41, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > >>> I'm sorry if I asked this before -- I've been asking individual folks > for > >>> over a month now, but I can't quickly find a public broadcast thread > about > >>> it, at least -- but I've been wondering lately: > >>> > >>> What, exactly, stands in the way of us branching for 1.7 > stabilization? > >>> > >>> ra_serf stabilization? No... that's fairly well taken care of, and > would > >>> fit perfectly within in the scope of post-branch work anyway. > >> > >> At least on Windows, I doubt that ra_serf is even used right now. > Because of > >> the huge memory leak serf has/had (See here: > >> http://code.google.com/p/serf/source/detail?r=1416). But even though > the > >> leak is fixed, there hasn't been another release yet. > >> With the latest release without that fix, serf is not usable at all. > >> To get more people to test ra_serf, serf itself first needs a new > release > >> which includes that fix. > >> > >> Stefan > >> > > > > Xlnt feedback. I've noted this on our roadmap.html page. What else? > > We could cut a serf bug fix release that has a few fixes that Lieven > committed shortly after we released 0.7.0. Greg or Lieven, any thoughts here? -- justin At least the one rev that fixes this issue, don't know if the other are already working in all scenario's. I'll look at it this weekend and make a release. Lieven
