-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 166
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix M_Oline.segment as discussed in #3826 #3827
Conversation
Just to explain (again) the change of milestone here: master is the next MINOR (or MAJOR). Any bugfix changes here will get backported to maint/4.0.x and need a separate PR once this one is merged. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good.
Ok so no backport to 3.2.3? |
Not unless you do that manually. I have no interest and don't see the point of backporting this to 3.2.3. I would do it if it was a simple pick of the commits. But that is not possible since the file structure has changed quite a lot since then.
Yes, already done. I just wait with the PR until this got successfully merged. |
To be honest: I'd drop the back-port to 3.2.3 - @ditmarw what's your opinion? |
That's fine with me. I don't think it is a huge issue and as you said, this was the very first time it was raised. So I doubt that user models exist that are impacted by this. Any new users will most likely start with MSL 4.0.0 anyway where the bugfix will be available at some point. |
by using fully qualified class names
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The code looks good
Utilize
Short
with instance nameM
for backwards compatibility.@dietmarw can you back-port this to maint/4.0.x (see #3818)?
I suppose after merging this PR and #3828 we should rebase #3819 or create a new PR.