On Dec 30, 2007 10:14 PM, Sidney Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Justin Mason wrote, On 31/12/07 10:28 AM: > > 5736 nor P5 Oth [email protected] FPs on FROM_DOMAIN_NOVOWEL > > & URI_NOVOWEL > > I agree it can wait unless someone comes up with a proposal for an immediate > fix. Any > ideas that show up after a 3.2.4 release can probably be handled in update > rules anyway.
yep. > > 5486 maj P5 Oth [email protected] __SARE_OBFU_TBL3 causes > > core dump due to recursion and st... > > I agree that this one can wait too, but what do you think about handling it > by just > devising a test case to flag installations that need to upgrade their perl > version, as I > put in a comment there? see my newest comment there ;) > > 5751 maj P2 Oth [email protected] sa-update leaves rules > > broken > > I got a bit confused in the tanglee of comments. What exactly is still in > this bug once > you separate out issues that are dealt with in bugs 5752 and some elements of > bugs 5193, > and 5043? As far as I can tell, though, bug 5751 is not something that will > be fixed by a > reasonable release time of 3.2.4 and should be deferred. bug 5752 would indeed fix this entirely, IMO. but it's not going to happen for 3.2.x; it's a major change of behaviour that's only appropriate for a major release. hence 5751 would still remain as an issue that's problematic in 3.2.x. (To be honest, if we can do 5752 for 3.3.0, I'd probably be quite happy enough myself with that anyway!) --j. > > Given this, should I prepare release tarballs once bug 5599 and bug 5748 > > have their fixes +1'd? > > +1 > > -- sidney > >
