> On 11 Nov 2022, at 03:33, Zack Weinberg <zack@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022, at 10:08 PM, Sam James wrote: >>> On 10 Nov 2022, at 21:10, Michael Orlitzky <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> While everyone else is discussing big ideas, it would be helpful for me >>> personally if autoconf just made a release with the latest bugfixes. >> >> Before I dive into the rest of this thread: yes, this is one of >> my main thoughts on the matter. Autoconf has a huge network >> effect problem and letting the existing fixes start to propagate >> would be most helpful. > > It would be relatively easy for me to take a couple hours this weekend and put out a 2.72 release with everything that's already in trunk and nothing else. Anyone have reasons I _shouldn't_ do that? > >> Note that in autoconf git, we've also got >> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/autoconf.git/commit/?id=f6657256a37da44c987c04bf9cd75575dfca3b60 >> which is going to affect time_t efforts too > > I have not been following the y2038 work closely. Is it going to affect things in a good way or a bad way?? > Back to the original thread: I suspect it might be a better idea to (temporarily) revert the two changes and omit it from 2.72 to allow the other changes to get out. That's not a judgement on whether the changes will ultimately remain in autoconf, I'm just hesitant to allow a discussion I've kicked off to derail something that we were planning on doing anyway. What do you think?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
