# Julia v1.5.0-rc2 is now available

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-5-0-rc2-is-now-available/43789>\
**Category:** Announcements\
**Tags:** release\
**Created:** [July 27, 2020, 8:09pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-5-0-rc2-is-now-available/43789 "2020-07-27T20:09:21Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![baggepinnen](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/baggepinnen/32/693_2.png) [@baggepinnen](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/baggepinnen)\
**Post date:** [July 28, 2020, 7:45am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-5-0-rc2-is-now-available/43789/6 "2020-07-28T07:45:59Z")

</div>

I was thinking that release candidates had no known bugs, but after having read some older posts like

> [@It is time... for Julia v0.7.0-rc2](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/it-is-time-for-julia-v0-7-0-rc2/12868/6):
>
> Assuming no bugs, we thought it was ready. But there were bugs, so it was not and we fixed them. Also, we will sometimes do an rc even with minor known issues to be addressed in the next rc to give people a chance to get the rest of the fixes they may be waiting on. This is all standard software development practice. It’s also a signal for the kind of changes that may go into the release. E.g. at this point we’re no longer gonna add any deprecations (with the usual disclaimers that common sense…

it seems that is not the case.

> [@giordano](#):
>
> they don’t seem to be regressions?

I guess that depends on which version you compare against 😅

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-5-0-rc2-is-now-available/43789)._