>>> "Jason R. Mastaler" wrote > > Could 2.3.1 be revoked or replaced ASAP? "2.3.1b" or similar with > > only this change would suit me. > > I'd be in favour of revoking 2.3.1 as well because of the severity of > this bug. I don't think we'll be completely rid of it otherwise. I';m not sure what the term "revoke" would mean in this context. Replacing it soon would work for me, and a big warning on the 2.3.1 page about the fsync problem and the HP/UX build problem (these are the two that _must_ be fixed in 2.3.2, as far as I'm concerned). I can whack a bit of text on the 2.3.1 page saying "there will be a 2.3.2 release shortly - stay tuned" if people think it's appropriate. Anthony -- Anthony Baxter <anthony at 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