Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2012
On 2 April 2012 01:53, Father Chrysostomos via RT <perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote: > On Sun Apr 01 16:53:03 2012, sprout wrote: >> On Sun Apr 01 14:25:43 2012, rgs@consttype.org wrote: >> > On 1 April 2012 23:13, Father Chrysostomos via RT >> > <perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote: >> > > On Sun Apr 01 14:07:43 2012, rgs@consttype.org wrote: >> > >> The approach of least resistance would be now to merge dual/Safe in >> > >> blead and release 2.33. >> > > >> > > I noticed that, and was going to change the blead version number to >> > > 2.32_01. �Which is the better approach? >> > >> > What I don't like is to have a fix in 2.32, not in 2.32_01, and back >> > again in 2.33. But if we go that way we can still ship 5.16 with >> > 2.32_01 (and your fix) and I'll ship 2.33 (with both fixes) in the >> > coming days. >> >> Sorry, I meant 2.31_01. > > But then we still have a fix in 2.31_01 that is not in 2.32. However, > the fix in this case does not affect 5.14. I've merged the branch blead in dual/Safe, bumped the version to 2.33 and released Safe 2.33 to CPAN.Thread Previous | Thread Next