Anthony Baxter <anthony at interlink.com.au> writes: >> Will there be a 2.3.2 release, or some other sort of bugfix release >> to address the problems in 2.3.1? I think the os.fsync() problem >> is serious enough to warrant revoking 2.3.1 and making a new >> release to replace it rather quickly. > > There's a workaround on the 2.3.1 bugs page. The only problems I'm > aware of with 2.3.1 are the HP/UX build problems (workaround on > bugs.html), the documentation mistakenly identifying itself as > '2.4.0alpha', and the os.fsync problem. There's a workaround, but the problem is that I think I'll be the one bearing the brunt of this bug for who knows how long. I've gotten about a half dozen problem reports about it already on the TMDA lists. TMDA uses os.fsync() in its mbox and Maildir delivery code, so practically every user will find their TMDA broken as soon as they install or upgrade to 2.3.1. Since Python point releases are usually so solid, they don't consider it might be a bug in the interpreter, and assume it's a TMDA bug. TMDA is just one example. Repeat for the other packages out there which rely on os.fsync(). The longer 2.3.1 is out there, the more it will be installed, incorporated into OS package distributions, etc, and the harder this breakage will be to shake.
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