Hi,
For the record, we came to agree that this would be pushed.
Regards,
Luís Soares
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 11:51 +0100, Alfranio Correia wrote:
> Hi Luis,
>
> On 09/27/2010 11:41 AM, Luís Soares wrote:
> > Hi Alfranio,
> >
> > On Sat, 2010-09-25 at 10:59 +0100, Alfranio Correia wrote:
> >> Hi Luis,
> >>
> >> The patch looks great but I have a few concerns.
> >>
> >> There is a change in behavior and for that reason the patch should not
> >> be pushed into 5.1-bugteam. Geert Vanderkelen seems to agree with this.
> >
> > Yes, I think we should not push to 5.1 (or 5.5).
> >
> >> If the patch will not be pushed into 5.1 and 5.5, I think we should not
> >> fix the bug and should just create a build for Ericsson. The filters
> >> should be changed and completely redesigned as you already know. Maybe
> >> this is the time for this because some of the changes necessary to have
> >> great filters are also necessary to have the multi-thread slave.
> >
> > Yes, they should be redesigned/replaced/improved on... But until then, I
> > say we fix such little things as this one on what we have today. If it
> > was a big effort, then I would agree to wait for a new filtering
> > approach (maybe based on WL#4008, WL#5287 and/or WL#2387). Since it's
> > not, then why not have this in anyway?
> >
>
> I think you should not fix this as there is only one customer requesting
> this feature and this customer uses 5.1 and will not migrate to any newer
> version.
>
> So I think you should just aim at having a final solution as there is
> no hurry for a quick fix.
>
> Cheers.
>
> >> Let's have a call next week to discuss further details on my idea.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >> See some comments in-line that you need to address.
> >>
> >> Cheers.
--
Luís
