Re: Bug #1 - (debug-disable 'debug) has no effect ...

Re: Bug #1 - (debug-disable 'debug) has no effect ...

[Marius Vollmer]

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

> >>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> writes:
> 
>     Marius> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>     >> This bug has been fixed in unstable CVS, by removing the lines at the
>     >> end of (ice-9 debug) that unconditionally enable debugging.  Is there
>     >> any reason why we shouldn't fix it in the same way on the stable
>     >> branch?
> 
>     Marius> This change would be too far reaching for a supposedly
>     Marius> stable program.  Debugging wouldn't be turned on when
>     Marius> people expect it.
> 
> I'm not convinced.  How can people be expecting debugging to be turned
> on after having explicitly said `(debug-disable 'debug)' in their
> .guile file?

Because Guile behaved like that for quite a while.

Ok, I thought about my general view of the stable branch situation,
and this came from it:

 We need to be much more rigorous about really keeping the stable
 branch stable.  From now on, only release critical fixes will be
 allowed.  I intend to be firm on this.  We are not getting anywhere
 without restraining us from putting new stuff into the stable branch.

I don't want to stop anyone from working on Guile, but I'd like to get
1.6 released fast.  This will help all of us.

See my posting to guile-devel.

_______________________________________________
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile

Re: Bug #1 - (debug-disable 'debug) has no effect ...

[Neil Jerram]

>>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> writes:

    Marius> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
    >> 
    >> I'm not convinced.  How can people be expecting debugging to be turned
    >> on after having explicitly said `(debug-disable 'debug)' in their
    >> .guile file?

    Marius> Because Guile behaved like that for quite a while.

But it's a bug!

Do we say that we don't want to fix `(array? car) => #t)' now because
Guile has behaved this way for a while?

Plus, the behaviour is going to change in 1.8, because someone has
already made a fix in HEAD.  Given that it will change, surely it's
better to do sooner.  We're not in the middle of a stable release
series yet.

        Neil


_______________________________________________
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile

Re: Bug #1 - (debug-disable 'debug) has no effect ...

[Marius Vollmer]

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

> >>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> writes:
> 
>     Marius> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>     >> 
>     >> I'm not convinced.  How can people be expecting debugging to be turned
>     >> on after having explicitly said `(debug-disable 'debug)' in their
>     >> .guile file?
> 
>     Marius> Because Guile behaved like that for quite a while.
> 
> But it's a bug!

Yes, and it is fixed in the non-stable branch.  It's too late to fix
it in the stable branch.  

It is too late because I have decided so.  I know that this might not
be popular, and it comes somewhat as a surprise.  I don't do this
because I like to be despotic, but because I think it is constructive.
1.6 has been too long in the making.  Of course, there is a huge
amount of improvements to be made in Guile, but that's why we have the
unstable HEAD branch.

> Do we say that we don't want to fix `(array? car) => #t)' now because
> Guile has behaved this way for a while?

Yes, exactly.  It wont be fixed in the stable branch.

You have say what branch you are talking about.  We can certainly
attempt to fix it in HEAD, as soon as possible.  The fix can be very
experimental, even, and we can let it ripe a bit.  But we should not
do this in the stable branch.

Now, the 'debug-disable' fix might be considered simple but since it
touches the public behavior of Guile in a common situation, we should
just be conservative, even if the existing behavior is considered a
bug.

> Plus, the behaviour is going to change in 1.8, because someone has
> already made a fix in HEAD.  Given that it will change, surely it's
> better to do sooner.  We're not in the middle of a stable release
> series yet.

We are, effectively.  And, the behavior might change again in HEAD
until 1.8 comes out.

_______________________________________________
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile

Re: Bug #1 - (debug-disable 'debug) has no effect ...

[Neil Jerram]

>>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> writes:

    Marius> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
    >> >>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> writes:
    >> 
    Marius> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
    >> >> 
    >> >> I'm not convinced.  How can people be expecting debugging to be turned
    >> >> on after having explicitly said `(debug-disable 'debug)' in their
    >> >> .guile file?
    >> 
    Marius> Because Guile behaved like that for quite a while.
    >> 
    >> But it's a bug!

    Marius> Yes, and it is fixed in the non-stable branch.  It's too late to fix
    Marius> it in the stable branch.  

    Marius> It is too late because I have decided so.  I know that this might not
    Marius> be popular, and it comes somewhat as a surprise.  I don't do this
    Marius> because I like to be despotic, but because I think it is constructive.
    Marius> 1.6 has been too long in the making.  Of course, there is a huge
    Marius> amount of improvements to be made in Guile, but that's why we have the
    Marius> unstable HEAD branch.

OK, fair enough.  Sorry for going on about this for so long.

    >> Do we say that we don't want to fix `(array? car) => #t)' now because
    >> Guile has behaved this way for a while?

    Marius> Yes, exactly.  It wont be fixed in the stable branch.

Sorry again; I didn't realize that we weren't planning to fix this in
the stable branch.  Understanding this makes the overall picture
much clearer. 

        Neil


_______________________________________________
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile

Re: Bug #1 - (debug-disable 'debug) has no effect ...

[Neil Jerram]

>>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> writes:

    Marius> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
    >> >>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> writes:
    >> 
    Marius> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
    >> >> 
    >> >> I'm not convinced.  How can people be expecting debugging to be turned
    >> >> on after having explicitly said `(debug-disable 'debug)' in their
    >> >> .guile file?
    >> 
    Marius> Because Guile behaved like that for quite a while.
    >> 
    >> But it's a bug!

    Marius> Yes, and it is fixed in the non-stable branch.  It's too late to fix
    Marius> it in the stable branch.  

    Marius> It is too late because I have decided so.  I know that this might not
    Marius> be popular, and it comes somewhat as a surprise.  I don't do this
    Marius> because I like to be despotic, but because I think it is constructive.
    Marius> 1.6 has been too long in the making.  Of course, there is a huge
    Marius> amount of improvements to be made in Guile, but that's why we have the
    Marius> unstable HEAD branch.

OK, fair enough.  Sorry for going on about this for so long.

    >> Do we say that we don't want to fix `(array? car) => #t)' now because
    >> Guile has behaved this way for a while?

    Marius> Yes, exactly.  It wont be fixed in the stable branch.

Sorry again; I didn't realize that we weren't planning to fix this in
the stable branch.  Understanding this makes the overall picture
much clearer. 

        Neil


_______________________________________________
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile

Re: Bug #1 - (debug-disable 'debug) has no effect ...

[Marius Vollmer]

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

>     >> Do we say that we don't want to fix `(array? car) => #t)' now because
>     >> Guile has behaved this way for a while?
> 
>     Marius> Yes, exactly.  It wont be fixed in the stable branch.
> 
> Sorry again; I didn't realize that we weren't planning to fix this in
> the stable branch.  Understanding this makes the overall picture
> much clearer. 

Ahh, good.  No need to say sorry.  It only shows that we all do not
indeed agree what the 1.6 branch is for.  I will add an explanation to
the branch, as per Thien-Thi's suggestion.

_______________________________________________
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile