>>> "Fred L. Drake, Jr." wrote > Since the point of a strictly bug-fix release is to fix bugs, I > would not tie the 2.1.2 release to 2.2 in any way. The 2.2 > developments remain a cheap source of bug fixes, though, so anything > that was an actual bug fix should be considered for 2.1.2. If an > alternate fix is needed because the codebase changed too much (which > may be very possible this time), a completely new patch may be > needed. I agree - there's also the possibility that there will be additional patches needed to fix a bug in code that's just not relevant for 2.2 (this is less likely), or an alternate fix might be needed that's not as thorough as one in 2.2 (where there's a large fix, a smaller workaround might be more appropriate for 2.1.2) -- 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