On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:37 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/5/2010 10:25 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: >>> >>> I noticed this when reviewing the 1.3.10 tarballs (still on my >>> machine). Should I retag 1.3.10 to avoid potential user confusion? >> >> or just skip 1.3.10 and call it 1.3.11; I don't care either way >> >> (If I hadn't sat back so long watching Bill crank these suckers out >> I'd be done. Thanks, Bill!) > > A PITA, huh? :) I would suggest simply rerolling with this change; > "No C sources were harmed in the creation of this tarball". > > But that's just my 2c, others might disagree.
I can pre-empt most concerns with the "version numbers are cheap" method. (Step 0. Review changes since the last release; fix or ask about anything suspicious.)
