Jim Gallacher wrote: > Deron Meranda wrote: >> Just want some verification because I haven't seen anything >> official looking.... >> >> Is 3.2.9 now considered a bad release because of its memory >> leaks, and thus will never be released? > > It's not so much that it's a bad release, but rather it didn't make > sense to officially release 3.2.9 and then turn around and release > 3.2.10 a week later. The leak that will be fixed in 3.2.10 is not new in > 3.2.9, only newly discovered. > >> Hence 3.2.10 will be >> the next hopeful stable release after 3.2.8? > > Basically yes, but if you are already using 3.2.9 there is no harm > specific harm. > > At any rate, I'll roll a 3.2.10 tarball for testing by the list tonight.
Best laid plans and all that... For 3.2.9 I called for 2 rounds of testing: one for the release candidate and one for the final tarball. Do folks here feel that is necessary for 3.2.10 or should I just jump right to the 3.2.10 final? That tarball would still be subject to a vote on this list before an official release. Cutting out the first step will save a few days. Jim
