From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.0-124-g5f0d295 Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:45:39 +0100 Message-ID: <874o6rdooc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87d3lff5ev.fsf@inria.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301078762 9652 80.91.229.12 (25 Mar 2011 18:46:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:46:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 25 19:45:56 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3C1B-000112-Jr for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:45:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38619 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q3C1B-0005Zh-86 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:45:53 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53189 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q3C13-0005W3-LA for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:45:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3C12-0000mN-F8 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:45:45 -0400 Original-Received: from solo.fdn.fr ([80.67.169.19]:54180) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3C12-0000mH-A6 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:45:44 -0400 Original-Received: from nixey (reverse-83.fdn.fr [80.67.176.83]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: lcourtes) by smtp.fdn.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1937E4492F; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:45:42 +0100 (CET) X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 5 Germinal an 219 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: (Andy Wingo's message of "Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:15:32 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110013 (No Gnus v0.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 80.67.169.19 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:11990 Archived-At: Hi, Andy Wingo writes: > On Fri 25 Mar 2011 18:58, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >> "Andy Wingo" writes: >> >>> bdw-gc 6.8 compatibility (hopefully) >> >> Aarrrgh. The intent has always been to support 7.x only (bdw-gc.h has >> compatibility stuff for historical reasons), which is already enough >> work. ;-) The README and various responses we posted in the past are >> consistent. >> >> WDYT? [...] > In short, it doesn't much matter to me :) We can program to the 7.x > interfaces, and if people want to use old buggy software, then we tell > them to upgrade. But if it keeps working, no problem, right? Well, I think it=E2=80=99s an additional burden on us. GC bugs are hard to= test and debug as you know ;-), so if we add more variability, then we may get stuck in a GC debugging loop. Not to mention that 6.8 is slower. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.