At 10:59 PM 9/28/2004, you wrote: >On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:00:12 -0600, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Quoting the download page: >> >> "Official Patches >> When we have patches to a minor bug or two, or features which we >> haven't yet included in a new release, we will put them in the patches >> subdirectory so people can get access to it before we roll another >> complete release."
Ahhh - so this patch absolutely fits in the description! >Any committer should be able to put patches in the appropriate >directory for any fix s/he deems appropriate once it has been approved >for the stable branch, without asking for additional approval, and >without regards to whether or not there will be another release within >n days. Ack - anything R-T-C'ed into 2.0 already has the blessed stamp of approval, just takes someone motivated to turn it into a patch. On the matter of calling a binary distribution 2.0.52, however, I'm still at odds with tossing in patches - if you do so, I'd prefer that the binary distribution is clearly named -r2, -patch1, or some such, to differentiate it from the "released" 2.0.52. >As a *completely* separate issue: I'm don't think Brad should assume >that there would not be enough people willing to test/approve another >release just because it primarily contained fixes to experimental >modules. (Though he probably would get to do all the really heavy >lifting.) I for one, once all the cache and ldap changes are done, will be very happy to help release .53, fwiw. Bill
