https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334815
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Frank Ch. Eigler from comment #2)
> As a courtesy, I may have time to help further polish the above fix,
> but it would be inappropriate to consider that my responsibility.
I'm simply asking "are you going to fix it", so noone doubles up on the work.
Sounds like that's a definite maybe then?
> > Perhaps we should be adding back the more reliable pmie solution, as a
> > safety net to counter this class of unexpected problem.
>
> It was more reliable in some ways and it was proven harmful in others.
It is clearly more reliable, and the perceived issues were just idle
speculation that didn't stand up to scrutiny.
If noone gets around to tackling this regression in the next release timeframe,
we can just add back the pmie rule so folk at least have that fail-safe
mechanism available. In fact, hmm, maybe that's the right permanent fix here -
then we don't have to worry about this class of problem in the future.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ymG37YEJUt&a=cc_unsubscribe
|