Go for it. I need to make progress on the cpp tree reorg, so I'd very
much appreciate it.
Justin
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
> On 14 December 2015 at 18:14, aconway wrote:
>> On Mon, 2015-12-14 at 18:11 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>>> I have a candidate proton-j cha
On 14 December 2015 at 18:14, aconway wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-12-14 at 18:11 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>> I have a candidate proton-j change that I'd like to see in a JMS
>> client release, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-1077, so
>> I'd be onboard with doing a 0.11.1 to get that too
On Mon, 2015-12-14 at 18:11 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> I have a candidate proton-j change that I'd like to see in a JMS
> client release, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-1077, so
> I'd be onboard with doing a 0.11.1 to get that too. Anyone else have
> things warranting inclusion in
I have a candidate proton-j change that I'd like to see in a JMS
client release, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-1077, so
I'd be onboard with doing a 0.11.1 to get that too. Anyone else have
things warranting inclusion in a 0.11.1?
If it were looking to be quick, I'd wait for it to us
The ruby binding was broken in the 0.11 release by a mistake that was
not caught in automated testing. I've fixed the problem and improved
the automated tests, I think this might deserve a 0.11.1 as ruby is
unusable in the 0.11 release which is a severe regression.
The fix is on the 0.11.x branch:
