Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2012
On Tue Apr 03 03:37:37 2012, rgs@consttype.org wrote: > 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. And I’ve just set the version to 2.31_01 in bleadperl, with commit 57ef7c8. -- Father Chrysostomos --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=111462Thread Previous | Thread Next