Hi Erik, On 2017-02-07 at 18:20:36 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > Patrick McCarty wrote: > > > Since this appears to have been a re-release of version 1.3.2, was this > > an intentional re-release? > > Yes it was. The bad tarball was on on the main upload site for > a couple of hours but problems with the mirroring meant that > the bad tarball lingered on some of the mirrors for much longer. > > The reason the bad tarball was bad the bad date in one of the > test files.shown in the diff below.
Thanks for confirming that the re-release was intentional. Might I recommend for the future that in case a bad tarball is ever produced for a release, the version number be bumped when redoing the release? In this case, leaving the bad tarball in place would be sufficient, as well as announcing that users should not use that version and upgrade to a later version with the fixed tarball. Regards, -Patrick _______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
