Re: 3.0.5 ?

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:51 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> On  7-Apr-2009, Thomas Weber wrote:
>
> | Please, never, ever re-release a tarball. This breaks all kind of
> | automatic version checkers, checksum testers and so on.
> |
> | There's nothing wrong with a 3.0.5 tarball.
>
> Yes, it would definitely be confusing if we have two different
> releases that are both using the same version number.
>
> Please let me know when you want to consider 3.0.5 as released and
> I'll upload it to the ftp servers as quickly as I can.  I'd like to
> see the version with the bug replaced as soon as possible.  It's OK if
> the difference between 3.0.4 and 3.0.5 is just a single patch.  I
> think it is better to have that than to have people downloading and
> using the buggy version.
>
> I'll also make a prominent notice on the web site so that people know
> that it is important to upgrade to get this fix.
>
> Thanks,
>
> jwe
>

Since nobody reported any problems with RC1, it's probably OK. load
seems working now, at least with a couple of simple tests I tried. We
may still wait a couple of days, but I don't expect anyone to discover
any new problem.
So I uploaded the unofficial 3.0.5 tarballs and diffs to the usual location.

cheers

-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz