Petr Rockai <[email protected]> writes: > Dan Pascu <[email protected]> writes: >> I can understand why significant changes should not go into a release the >> day before it is going out, but come on, even not knowing Haskell I can >> still read that the patch does nothing more than use putDoc instead of >> putDocLn (which is putDoc plus an extra line). Such trivial bug fixes >> shouldn't be put on a shelf waiting another few months before users can >> benefit from them (do not forget that few people build darcs from source >> and even fewer build the current tree, most of them just use a binary >> made after a release or whatever comes packaged by their distribution). > Such trivial fixes, after the release candidate is out, require another RC > cycle, which is a week. So it's either: > 1) we slip the release a week, this fix included > 2) we release on time, and release 2.2.1 in two or three weeks, this fix > included (and hopefully some other) > > I vote for 2. If anyone disagrees, please voice your opinion (otherwise, I > take > the default, ie. option 2).
+1 for option (2). Just because a bugfix doesn't *look* like it will cause regressions doesn't mean that it wont, and bugs during the RC period a non-critical bugfix does not justify the added risk of potential regressions. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
