On Jul 4, 2011 10:18 PM, "Greg Stein" <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 4, 2011 1:34 PM, "Hyrum K Wright" <hy...@hyrumwright.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Philip Martin > > <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> wrote: > > > "Bert Huijben" <b...@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 against > > >> 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. > > -g
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. -g
