RFC re: 798960 -- session timeout-induced bug

Matt Wagner matt.wagner at redhat.com
Thu Mar 1 22:43:46 UTC 2012


Hi folks,

The other day, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794536 was
entered -- "conductor should have an inactivity timeout."

I only noticed it after it was pushed, and I remarked on IRC that it
sounded more like an irritant than a good feature. Further, I suggested
that it was a new feature, not a bug, so it didn't belong in this
sprint. It sounded like there was some consensus on at least the second
point, but more in a "going forward" sense than in relation to this
specific bugfix.

I just noticed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798960 as I
was packing up for the day, which is marked as an urgent bug that is
wreaking havoc on QE. While it's a legitimate bug, it seems like it's
directly caused by the patch in #794536.

At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon, I would propose that we
should revert the patch for 794536. The patch itself was good, but its
inclusion was out-of-scope for the sprint, and it's now causing a
high-priority bug.

Thoughts?

-- Matt



More information about the aeolus-devel mailing list