Cool. Yes go ahead on 530. Thanks Sanne
On 22 juil. 2010, at 16:50, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > 2010/7/22 Emmanuel Bernard <emman...@hibernate.org>: >> Looks like a good candidate for back port indeed. >> Add the 3.2.1 version to the existing bug, that's the easiest solution. > > Hi, I merged HSEARCH-534 in the the 3.2 branch. > If you agree with it I could spend some minutes to merge HSEARCH-530 > too, I don't see more interesting issues. > > Sanne > >> >> On 22 juil. 2010, at 00:47, Sanne Grinovero <sanne.grinov...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> maybe HSEARCH-534 could be considered: non-intrusive change, nasty bug too. >>> What's the procedure? I suppose 1) edit "fix versions" to add the >>> 3.2.1 2) merge the changeset in the branch >>> or should we also open a new issue, or reopen the same one? >>> >>> 2010/7/19 Emmanuel Bernard <emman...@hibernate.org>: >>>> Since 3.3 is not out yet (likely an end of summer target), I'm thinking on >>>> releasing a maintenance version of the 3.2 series. >>>> HSEARCH-540 is a pretty nasty bug (due to lack of Synchronization >>>> execution ordering - see Re: [hibernate-dev] Exceptions thrown in a tx >>>> synchronization are eaten by Steve on July 14th). >>>> >>>> Any other bug you think cannot wait and should be back-ported? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> hibernate-dev mailing list >>>> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >>>> >> _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
