bzr-1.15final released

[Andrew Cowie]

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 08:01 +0200, Martin Pool wrote:
> > Does this mean that someone installing a bzr 1.15 package is not getting
> > 7/9ths of the faster C code and that their bzr will now be dog slow as a
> > result?
> >
> > If so, this would seem to call for an immediate 1.15.1.
> 
> If the tarball doesn't have the C files and they don't have Pyrex, it
> will be a major regression.  Bob, even if you don't know what allowed
> this to occur, maybe you could ship a 1.15.1 with the C files now?

So, this is really bad.

When a build bug like this is identified, it needs to be addressed right
away.

Release glitches happen; despite weeks of testing one always find a bug
about 20 minutes after one cuts tarballs. Or less. (One time I noticed I
had the wrong year in the NEWS file 90 seconds after I'd propagated the
tarballs to the GNOME mirrors. Oops) No big deal; it's the Way of
things.

But for a build problem a micro release fixing the situation really
needs to be published quickly. 1.15.1; 1.15.0a, whatever.

If you fail to do so, distros will have had time to package the broken
version and ship it.

Which has now happened.

Meanwhile, it is two weeks later and still waiting. It would have been
nice if 1.15.1 could have been cut right away, just like Martin asked.

Yes, I know there were a few other fixes of interest. We were advised
then that we'd have to wait while people flew from one continent to
another. Surely "I need to fly from one continent to another before I
can work on this" would seem to be good indicator that maybe we
shouldn't wait; those fixes could have been in a 1.15.2 without holding
up 1.15.1

AfC
Sydney

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090609/0cc66eb9/attachment.pgp