Colin Johnsun | 4 Apr 06:06 2012
Picon

Re: Backport of ZMQ_RCVTIMEO/ZMQ_SNDTIMEO to 2.1.x

I agree with all previous posters, +1 on 2.2. Semver is easy to
understand. You could refactor the code as much as you want but if it
doesn't change the ABI then it is should only be 2.x.x release.

On 4 April 2012 08:21, Joshua Foster <jhawk28 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 on 2.2. keep the concept that 2.x is a "feature bump" and 2.x.x is a patch. It doesn't have to correlate to
the size of the release.
> -1 to no improvements to 2.x. I don't think it should be a policy. If people want to "maintain" older
releases, thats up to them. I would hope that as things improve on 3.1, people would stop maintaining older releases.
>
> Joshua
>
> On Apr 3, 2012, at 8:30 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
>
>> Very nice work. I've backported it to 2.1, it'll go in the next release.
>>
>> Small point for improvement, please write issues as problems rather
>> than solutions, so e.g. "Send/receive timeouts missing, makes REQ
>> sockets less useful".
>>
>> -Pieter
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Joshua Foster <jhawk28 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I back ported the fix in https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq2-1/pull/45
>>> The issue is logged in https://zeromq.jira.com/browse/LIBZMQ-349
>>>
>>> Joshua
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>>> zeromq-dev <at> lists.zeromq.org
>>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev <at> lists.zeromq.org
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev <at> lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

Gmane