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. -- Father Chrysostomos --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=111462Thread Previous | Thread Next