-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/16/2012 09:47 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 05:32 AM, Trent Nelson wrote:
>
>> Anyway, back to the original question: does anyone know of reasons
>> we shouldn't bump to 2.69?  Any known incompatibilities?
>
> There will be problems building with 2.69 on Ubuntus older than
> 12.10, and Debians older than wheezy.
>
> % rmadison autoconf autoconf |     2.61-4 |         hardy | source,
> all autoconf | 2.65-3ubuntu1 |         lucid | source, all autoconf |
> 2.67-2ubuntu1 |         natty | source, all autoconf | 2.68-1ubuntu1 |
> oneiric | source, all autoconf | 2.68-1ubuntu2 |       precise |
> source, all autoconf | 2.69-1ubuntu1 |       quantal | source, all %
> rmadison -u debian autoconf autoconf | 2.67-2 | squeeze | source, all
> autoconf | 2.69-1 | wheezy  | source, all autoconf | 2.69-1 | sid
> | source, all
>
> FWIW, precise is Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, so it carries Python 2.7 and 3.2.
> I think it would be fine to update the default branch (i.e. 3.4), but
> I'm not sure what benefit you gain from making this change to stable
> branches, and you could potentially cause build problems, which you
> may not find out about for a while, e.g. when 2.7.4 is released and
> all the distros go to update.

Agreed:  this is really the same issue as bumping the VisualStudio
version (or any other build tooling) inside a release line:  too much
potential for breakage for little gain.