From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Linas Vepstas" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user,gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Guile release planning Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:44:42 -0600 Message-ID: <3ae3aa420811101944m23d7a72ch992c253326f7e236@mail.gmail.com> References: <49dd78620811101723m6b014589ua01037d5ea3f17b9@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: linasvepstas@gmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1226375099 31442 80.91.229.12 (11 Nov 2008 03:44:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:44:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user , guile-devel To: "Neil Jerram" Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 11 04:46:00 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KzkCW-0001Ce-2R for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 04:46:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48745 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KzkBO-00049D-JA for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:44:50 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KzkBJ-00048s-Ui for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:44:46 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KzkBI-00048T-MJ for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:44:44 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44854 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KzkBI-00048Q-Fi for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:44:44 -0500 Original-Received: from yx-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.44.152]:12024) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KzkBI-0003w7-0V for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:44:44 -0500 Original-Received: by yx-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 34so1149061yxf.66 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:44:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to :to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=sNq/JPg6RcDsqrQcYN01XyWLDNS1RqaSiGmUjFf2yyI=; b=a5WmLuu95Ug/B3F0A7vW8sHEbs9DKB4lkVnXwXGA3Jpm6gRgmYRu7X9z5n8pNZZQzi vbb0lGemhnWRw/hYIP4BjVhAsOC+BJyB8vCHARF/jtDxAAcP5YVbsYYZUZaWq98Uprx2 /V85j6O8MVm1TdyupXzi/bYkNoDFlWYoomz+E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:references; b=b/3s3G8V+2CfJ8J5TbuCYmnYEHQDOu/m1HZxP8vijhA85/ZG7YNJ8oBJe6bbXXETZb vRtFWFHmB+d+eXZL00PcPEg+o0S1CJCt91+Amv/XmUF4kdaHrcW6qzqBe3aTXmtUiqjn oOH8gzqSCU0Ab5Klv2WCLZ5cb0uBuBt2LMILA= Original-Received: by 10.100.121.12 with SMTP id t12mr2588986anc.96.1226375082818; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:44:42 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.100.249.18 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:44:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <49dd78620811101723m6b014589ua01037d5ea3f17b9@mail.gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:6867 gmane.lisp.guile.devel:7822 Archived-At: 2008/11/10 Neil Jerram : > > I also think it will help us manage API incompatibilities better. I > think our default position from now on should be to maintain > source-level (API) compatibility, but it is inevitable that there will > be exceptions to this. Any ideas for binary compatibility for the "micro" revisions? I recently discovered that a library compiled against 1.8.3 would core dump when used with an application compiled against 1.8.5. Operationally, not a big deal, really; I just recompiled the lib, but emotionally, it did give me that sinking feeling for a while, of maybe having yet another hard-to-find bug, or a system I cannot fully trust. :-( > the steady new feature model is better. The linux kernel got rid of the stable/unstable branch idea, and it's worked really really well. (the reasons why are widely documented) I'm for it. --linas