On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:00 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I agree, but too late now (what a week). I'll commit the artifacts to the dev dist directory before long.
