On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 11:03:31AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:06:07AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > > > > Comparing the cp/ChangeLog files from 4.0.2 and the 4_0 branch, it looks > > > like the fix is in the release according to the current ChangeLog, but > > > in fact it wasn't: > > > > Indeed, cvs log confirms that the revision was made to cp/init.c on > > September 22. > > > > It appears that the release automation failed, and that, in fact, the > > allegedly final GCC 4.0.2 bits are in fact the early version of GCC > > 4.0.2 that I never uploaded because of the last-minute changes for > > Solaris and such. > > > > I'm incredibly depressed. > > In the past, when mistakes like this occurred (though it has been a long > time), we put out a correction release, which in this case might be named > 4.0.2a or 4.0.2.1. > > I suggest 4.0.2.1.
Rather, if we decide to immediately just put out the version you had intended to release (without other changes) it could be called 4.0.2.1.
