On 2/5/2010 1:40 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > 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.)
And another pretty straightforward point; autoconf is already conf'ed. Since this package ships ./configure, the warning would apply to a very small subset of a very small subset of people who 1) rerun ./buildconf for their own pleasure and 2) have a stale flavor. So I personally don't think it's even worth rerolling.
