On Jan 19, 2010, at 9:26 AM, kmra...@rockwellcollins.com wrote: > > "Hyrum K. Wright" <hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote on 01/12/2010 04:52:33 > PM: > > > After pulling 1.6.7 due to a segfault regression, we've rerolled the > > branch as Subversion 1.6.8. The magic revision is r898464, and you > > can find the tarballs here: > > > > http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.8/ > > > > Please be sure to test the bindings. > > > > You know the drill: signatures from full committers back to me, and > > enthusiastic tester feedback is welcome. At this point, this > > candidate is not yet blessed for wide release, so please don't make > > it available to people not interested in test-driving the new release. > > > > Distro package maintainers, please do NOT include any pre-release > > builds, even blessed, into operating system distros. The reasons > > for not doing so were very eloquently outlined by Karl in a mail, > > which is summarized at the above address. > > > > The quick version is: we don't guarantee compatibility between the > > pre-releases and the final release, so if people install the release > > candidate, all their repositories and working copies might break > > irreparably when they upgrade to 1.6.8 proper. We don't want that > > kind of bad publicity, and neither do you. > > Is there a consensus yet if 1.6.8 needs to be aborted for 1.6.9? If > not, what votes are missing for the release? > > (Sorry to keep asking, but we are really being hurt by the svn:external > connection problems in all the current 1.6.x releases...)
The general confusion with the bindings, the serf failures, and other topics, has lead discussion on IRC to recommend pulling 1.6.8, and rolling 1.6.9 with a fixed deps tarball, as well as fixes to the serf failures and one more fix for a common bug. That is now the plan, and I'll shortly send out another mail to that effect. -Hyrum
