On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:54:22AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > >>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. > > > > ... but IIRC it cripples GCC for m68k; Debian turned up hundreds of > > build failures because of this bug and it set builds back several > > weeks. > > Was this a regression from 4.0.0 or 4.0.1? > > > Personally, I'd do a 4.0.3 based on current bits. > > The problem is that it's not just me banging on the release button > (which does itself take quite a lot of time, since there's all the > secondary upload and web-site work to do); it's also going to mean > freezing the release branch and doing a release candidate with current > changes, which will further distract from 4.1. >
It doesn't have to a formal release. I would just make a snapshot from the 4.0 branch and point the affected people to it. If there isn't enough, you can always make another snapshot. You can update 4.0.2 release web page and mention the snapshot for those people. H.J.
