Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The key question is whether to do an immediate 4.0.3 to catch up to what > we intended. (That's not entirely trivial, in that things have now been > checked in on the 4.0 branch, so we would have to temporarily back out > some patches, or apply tags very carefully.) Or, we could do a 4.0.3 > based on current bits. > > My inclination is to do nothing (other than correct the target > milestones on these bugs in bugzilla) and move on. The Solaris problem > is bad, and I beat up on Benjamin to get it fixed, but I'm not sure it's > a crisis meriting another release cycle. The C++ change fixed a > regression relative to 3.4.x, but not 4.0.x. Andreas' change is only > known to affect m68k. > > I'd appreciate feedback. (I don't promise to be bound by the majority > view, though.)
I think it's OK to let it go. It doesn't seem like a crisis to me. Chalk it up to experience. > I'd also appreciate suggestions for making the release script more > robust in this situation; clearly, depending on cvs rtag to fail is > clearly not sufficiently reliable. One obvious idea would be to first see if the tag exists, and to fail if it does. You can see if it exists by doing a checkout using that tag. If the tag does not exist, the checkout will fail. Note that this is a slow process, as CVS pokes around trying to find the tag, but presumably the script takes a while to run anyhow. I guess this will have to be rewritten to use SVN soon anyhow. Ian
