On Tue, Sep 25 2018, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > On 2018/09/25 01:53, Daniel Dickman wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:10 AM, Björn Ketelaars >> <bjorn.ketela...@hydroxide.nl> wrote: >> > However, I'm not confident that there is enough time to test the above >> > before the 6.4 freeze. Therefore I would like to propose to revert the >> > recent update of py-zmq. Diff enclosed. > > OK sthen@ > >> let me ponder this for a few days before we revert py-zmq. I've done >> most of the same updates locally on my end so I'll compare my work >> with yours. > > We can always put it back in later if we're confident in the other updates > (there's not a massive chain of dependencies). I don't see a downside, and > at this point leaving it broken for a few days risks it being broken for > release.
I see no downside either. And it looks like no consumer of py-zmq has been updated since py-zmq itself was updated, so it's unlikely the revert will cause other problems. -> also ok jca@ > (half-serious suggestion, maybe we should set all ports to EPOCH=0 to > avoid the barrier of people not wanting to add EPOCH where it didn't > exist before..) Half-serious ok :) -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
