[Box Backup-dev] Objections to 0.10 release?

Per Thomsen boxbackup-dev at fluffy.co.uk
Tue Feb 21 21:05:38 GMT 2006


On 2/21/06 12:38 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Martin Ebourne wrote:
>
>>> Does anyone have any objections to a 0.10 release from trunk at r483?
>
> Not really, but would you mind if I built the win32 binary from my
> general-fixes branch rather than trunk? I think the command socket
> fixes are worth having. Or I can produce binaries of both, and let
> people decide.
>
>> NetBSD has two issues kqueue and statfs. I don't have any access to
>> netbsd so can't make a tested fix. I sent emails on each of these
>> issues with half a patch & some guidance for someone with access to
>> fix these (neither should be hard) last night but they bounced. I'll
>> resend the emails if the list is now working again.
>
> I have non-root access to a NetBSD box and I can do debugging on
> there. I managed to compile successfully after disabling HAVE_KQUEUE
> (no statfs issues on NetBSD 2.0.2) but some tests are failing.
NetBSD 3.0 introduced the use of statvfs, that's why you're not seeing
any issues there.

FWIW, I am not seeing any difference in my test results with our without
HAVE_KQUEUE...
>
>> I don't really mind you releasing as is, but if it is possible for
>> people to help out & fix these 3 issues in a couple of days I think
>> it would be better. I'm very wary of any more delays though so I'd be
>> inclined to put a short fixed time limit on that.
>
> I'm also in favour of getting the release out sooner rather than later.
I think we should get 0.10 out now, and have NetBSD (and others) working
well for 0.11.

My €0.02,
Per

-- 
Per Reedtz Thomsen | Reedtz Consulting, LLC | F: 209 883 4119
V: 209 883 4102    |   pthomsen at reedtz.com  | C: 209 996 9561
GPG ID: 1209784F   |  Yahoo! Chat: pthomsen | AIM: pthomsen




More information about the Boxbackup-dev mailing list