Jim Gallacher wrote:
> Deron Meranda wrote:
>> Just want some verification because I haven't seen anything
>> official looking
>>
>> Is 3.2.9 now considered a bad release because of its memory
>> leaks, and thus will never be released?
>
> It's not so much that it's a bad release, but rather it didn't make
> sense to officially release 3.2.9 and then turn around and release
> 3.2.10 a week later. The leak that will be fixed in 3.2.10 is not new in
> 3.2.9, only newly discovered.
>
>> Hence 3.2.10 will be
>> the next hopeful stable release after 3.2.8?
>
> Basically yes, but if you are already using 3.2.9 there is no harm
> specific harm.
>
> At any rate, I'll roll a 3.2.10 tarball for testing by the list tonight.
Best laid plans and all that...
For 3.2.9 I called for 2 rounds of testing: one for the release
candidate and one for the final tarball. Do folks here feel that is
necessary for 3.2.10 or should I just jump right to the 3.2.10 final?
That tarball would still be subject to a vote on this list before an
official release. Cutting out the first step will save a few days.
Jim
