I would go with #3 as there are no changes to the source.
Alex
Wes Hardaker wrote:
> I've published 5.3.1 and will make a formal announcement to the
> -announce list a bit later. The one issue with it is that I blew the
> generation of the NEWS file. There is now a new NEWS file in CVS in
> t
Wes Hardaker wrote:
> 1) publish 5.3.1.1 on monday to fix JUST the news file
> 2) don't and leave as is
> 3) publish 5.3.1.tar.***bz2*** (or .tgz) with the proper NEWS file
I'd lean towards #2. Just put the *updated* NEWS content into the official
announcement (and perhaps the website, but that's
On Jul 14, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:I've published 5.3.1 and will make a formal announcement to the -announce list a bit later. The one issue with it is that I blew the generation of the NEWS file. There is now a new NEWS file in CVS in the 5.3 branch, but it's not what's in the tar b
I've published 5.3.1 and will make a formal announcement to the
-announce list a bit later. The one issue with it is that I blew the
generation of the NEWS file. There is now a new NEWS file in CVS in
the 5.3 branch, but it's not what's in the tar ball (I noticed it
about 5 seconds after uploadi
