>>> Guido van Rossum wrote > Do we need a beta for the 2.1.2 release? I think it might be prudent > -- Anthony's last-minute checking of a critical fix to a bug that > prevented compilation on one platform points this out again. Maybe. But on the other hand, I've also done a bunch of different builds on as many platforms as I could find. [The oopsie I found was actually probably the most complex merge of the lot, and that's not saying much. put it down to too many CVS checkouts and not enough brain :)] The ugliness potential is from either those platforms that are an offense against nature that no-one thinks to try, or from some sort of weird compilation options. I don't think that there's many of the fixes in the 2.1.2 code that are going to break something that worked before - with the list of platforms I've hit tonight, I think I've got most of the new code exercised. (One of the minor-ish constraints I put on candidate fixes was whether or not I could easily test it.) The other question I have to ask is whether people will actually download and test a beta/release candidate of a bugfix release. Anthony -- Anthony Baxter <anthony@interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4