On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 04:48:51PM +0100, Michael Ströder wrote:
> On 1/3/20 12:55 PM, Ondřej Kuzník wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 03:12:26PM +0100, Michael Ströder wrote:
>>> I've changed the subject to make it more clear what the real issue is.
>>
>> Yup, was away over the holidays, this sho
On 1/3/20 12:55 PM, Ondřej Kuzník wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 03:12:26PM +0100, Michael Ströder wrote:
>> I've changed the subject to make it more clear what the real issue is.
>
> Yup, was away over the holidays, this should now be fixed in master if
> you want to have a look.
AFAICS it has
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 03:12:26PM +0100, Michael Ströder wrote:
> Happy New Year!
> It's me again... ;-)
Happy New Year, Michael!
> I've changed the subject to make it more clear what the real issue is.
Yup, was away over the holidays, this should now be fixed in master if
you want to have a lo
Happy New Year!
It's me again... ;-)
I've changed the subject to make it more clear what the real issue is.
Is there actually a test for cancel operation in the test suite?
Ciao, Michael.
On 12/23/19 9:08 PM, Michael Ströder wrote:
> On 12/23/19 8:57 PM, Michael Ströder wrote:
>> It seems I'm e
On 12/23/19 8:57 PM, Michael Ströder wrote:
> It seems I'm experiencing a regression when running tests of
> python-ldap0 with current RE24 which does not fail with 2.4.48:
>
> test016_cancel (__main__.Test00_LDAPObject) ... munmap_chunk(): invalid
> pointer
> ERROR
>
> There was this change for
HI!
It seems I'm experiencing a regression when running tests of
python-ldap0 with current RE24 which does not fail with 2.4.48:
test016_cancel (__main__.Test00_LDAPObject) ... munmap_chunk(): invalid
pointer
ERROR
There was this change for ITS#9124. So I guess it's causing this regression.
Cou
