Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
> Justin Mason wrote:
> > rc2 seems pretty solid. I suggest if this keeps up 'til tomorrow, we
> > should put it out as 3.2.0-beta1?
>
> That's a little backwards, no? I don't think I've ever seen anybody
> release betas after their release candidates. :)
>
> If everyone's happy with RC2 I'd suggest you just send out an email to
> announce@, etc, saying "we're happy with RC2, now is your last chance to
> break it before RC2 is released as 3.2.0".
hmm. I'd prefer to have a version number people can point at...
> > The remaining bugs in the 3.2.0 queue are:
> >
> > 4834 nor P3 NEW Patch: SA 3.1.1 "make test" fails
> > in jail on FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE
> > 4481 nor P5 NEW if ($@) { dbg constructs *should*
> > report the value of $@
> > 5420 nor P5 NEW DnsResolver.pm fails when new()
> > returns EACCES
>
> 5420 seems like it could cause big problems for Solaris users. I'm
> actually a little more uncomfortable about fixing it on a stable branch
> than I am about fixing it now. Perhaps we should fix it, release an RC3
> and indicate in the announcement that RC3 is intended to be the final
> RC. Basically you get your "beta1" and we don't risk breaking stuff in
> 3.2.1.
Yes, OK. I can go for that. ;)
> > These 3 are trivial in scale. However I'd prefer not to apply them unless
> > we run into another serious bug which requires another rc tarball; any
> > change can cause problems at this stage ;) They could all wait for 3.2.1
> > in my opinion.
> >
> >
> > 5412 min P5 NEW deferable spamc -x -R always
> > returns zero
> > 5419 min P5 ASSI deferable kill -HUP `pidof
> > spamd` causes the ps name to change from "spamd" to "perl"
> >
> > These we can safely leave for 3.2.1, I think.
>
> +1
>
>
> Daryl
