> >>> 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. Given my current schedule I cannot offord to build 2.1.2 from CVS and test it, but I would certainly try out a beta or rc on win2000. Been burned too often by a buggy bdist_wininst ;-( Thomas
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