Re: 3.0.5 ?

[Carlo de Falco]

2009/4/7 Jaroslav Hajek <address@hidden>:

> Well the fix is available in the archive, so anyone can download it to
> patch the sources.

yes, but the info on the web site seems to indicate it's "safe" to use
the stable release
as it is been tested for long time and the developers consider it more
"reliable" than the development version..
So users downloading the binary versions might be very confused by
finfing a bug in such a commonly used
function as "load"

> I have no problem with making a new release
> containing just this single bugfix, though I myself have no need for
> it.

Thanks!

> Should it be named 3.0.5, 3.0.4-1 or something like that? Or
> should we just re-release 3.0.4?

Personally I like the idea of just re-releasing 3.0.4 if this does not
mess-up the archives.
But I'm not sure whether a release with the same name as the existing
one would be able
to convince the maintainers of binary packages to produce new releases
themselves..
IIRC this sort of quick bug-fix release has been done before, does
anyone rememer what was the procedure in previous cases?

c.