It should be fine to call it 2.4.X.
With internal structure changes was the structure version flag updated
so that the code tells you to rebuild older modules rather than
segfault? That is worth checking.
Christian
Doug Burke wrote:
On Jun 28, 2006, at 5:12 PM, Craig DeForest wrote:
.. start diking out and rearranging code.
A 2.4.3 release (even if not perfect) will go a long way toward
usability, since 2.4.2 was so evidently flawed. Folks have been very
kindly testing on different platforms, and I think we have even more
stability and breadth now than when 2.4.2 was released.
Are there any objections? If not, I'll sift through the Changes file
and make a Release Notes file for 2.4.3 over the weekend -- we can
test during the next week and release by the end of the week (unless
something major comes up).
Cheers,
Craig
Can we still call it a 2.4 series release when the "experimental"
per-piddle bad-value code change means that compiled modules will have
to be rebuilt to use the new release (or at least I think they will as
there have been changes to some internal data structures). However, I
don't think there's enough in it to warrant upping the version to 2.5.
Doug
_______________________________________________
Perldl mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
_______________________________________________
Perldl mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
