[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- From: Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:18:29 -0700
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
On 11/1/2014 5:16 AM, Wim Jongman wrote:
I would like to fix the JmDNS lockup or switch to the latest version
Are you intending this for 3.9.1 in a couple of weeks? If so that
would be great, but there are a number of things to do:
1) The latest JMDNS version that we have a CQ for appears to be
3.2.2-B. See  for the ECF IP log, and  for the ECF CQ for
3.2.2-B. I'm not sure what version of jmdns you will want to update
to, but the good news is that other projects have apparently already
gotten CQs for jmdns 3.4.0  and 3.4.1 , so a new piggyback CQ must
be opened for whichever version is a appropriate.
2) Please also open a new ECF enhancement request, specifically for
whatever version of jmdns you identify above (e.g subject: 'update
jmdns provider to version 3.4.1').
I think if you get 1 in pretty quickly, and it can be a piggyback CQ,
then it probably will be approved quickly at this time of year. We can
probably work through 2 pretty quickly as well...i.e. in time for a Nov
17 release of 3.9.1.
Also I would like to switch our build to Tycho. I talked to RedHat and
we cannot get in the LTS program without it.
1) This is a much bigger undertaking, and I can't see it as feasible for
3.9.1 release...i.e. this month.
2) Although I'm generally in favor of doing it, it's going to take a
fair amount of multi-person effort, as well coordination and
assistance...from Markus K (in particular). Someone will need to
marshal resources (e.g. new and/or existing committers, or major new
3) About getting in the LTS program: What good would that do ECF?
I've had a direct interaction with the LTS people on this bug , and
I've come to the sad conclusion that the way LTS is
structured/chartered/defined does not provide any value to ECF .