Pieter Hintjens ph at imatix.com
Fri Oct 19 05:59:24 CEST 2012

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ian Barber <ian.barber at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thinking about it, I believe the original patch had it as a EHOSTUNREACH -
> it got changed to a EAGAIN and I don't specifically recall the reason why -
> I'll have to look back over the commit history.

Changed on June 17th... it seems to me the original name and semantics
were good, and the June 17 change broke them without real
argumentation. Perhaps we can enforce the C4 "Development Process"
rules a little harder. Every pull request with an issue that explains
the problem it's solving.

There's an open issue on this: https://zeromq.jira.com/browse/LIBZMQ-431.


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list