"Jason R. Mastaler" wrote
Could 2.3.1 be revoked or replaced ASAP? "2.3.1b" or similar with only this change would suit me.
I'd be in favour of revoking 2.3.1 as well because of the severity of this bug. I don't think we'll be completely rid of it otherwise.
I';m not sure what the term "revoke" would mean in this context. Replacing it soon would work for me, and a big warning on the 2.3.1 page about the fsync problem and the HP/UX build problem (these are the two that _must_ be fixed in 2.3.2, as far as I'm concerned).
I can whack a bit of text on the 2.3.1 page saying "there will be a 2.3.2 release shortly - stay tuned" if people think it's appropriate.