Yes, and it is so tagged in github.
On 6/1/2013 2:49 PM, Kenji Hara wrote:
2013/6/2 Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com>
1. We already have a 2.063.1 released. An update would be 2.063.2.
? Sorry, I might have some misunderstanding.Currently we can access the "2.063" release package from here.
Is this internally called by the name "2.063.1"?
The v2.063 was an aborted 'release'. 2.063.1 is what was released. (The compiler & libraries are unchanged, what happened was the documentation was fixed.)We already have v2.063 tag in git repository, so I've thought that 2.063 is different from 2.063.1. Is that incorrect?
I agree.2. I'd prefer to wait a bit to collect any more regressions before rushing out with an update.
OK. Waiting next "fix-up" release a while seems reasonable. In my opinion, one or two weeks would be good. But a month is a bit long to me.