From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel,gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: GNU Guile 2.1.7 released (beta) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:57:38 +0100 Message-ID: <8760jwvnql.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87y3x3zt6v.fsf@pobox.com> <87tw7kviu6.fsf@pobox.com> <87k28fmqhu.fsf@web.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1488131880 13323 195.159.176.226 (26 Feb 2017 17:58:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 17:58:00 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org, guile-devel@gnu.org To: Arne Babenhauserheide Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 26 18:57:56 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ci34y-0002i5-R1 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:57:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47756 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ci354-0002gj-Rm for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 12:57:58 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57367) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ci34z-0002gc-LV for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 12:57:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ci34w-0004Yk-LS for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 12:57:53 -0500 Original-Received: from pb-sasl2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.67]:54879 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ci34w-0004XP-Gs; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 12:57:50 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723DF6286A; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 12:57:48 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=1BlXNSmwFVr4P8tzQyzMI5n8PE0=; b=U0+V9v iiUftWkMm7TOwTZbBse2ICL2Ch0bJ5y+if8mRVr/JNGIxyFDDbWhP3qEjDGmN6jn ercBJEHIvRz7LGXNJ8zyRrlZqZgttXbxh2yJcGFVQFGgb3rOU3N8LZj33T2ZAIdE 9NeEmO44DZVv4IKLrM7j+iCIinE8PMNmZDfXs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=l4O1+/vSnYb7iY9Zw/W1tPp7/NTwOVQf w1flKwJT/NU6EzuoUcaYVzRJKMbnPJlsq0hWVeHDxcVkruCeGdRMKuTRaiV/4jcD bZUmG6R4UPv2YGMsGP7jk/zkaK1g01TRUrjHEcN2/vmMO+1GjYgSm/uK8hfg7pDg 6h7NhQ5Z254= Original-Received: from pb-sasl2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A15562869; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 12:57:48 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from clucks (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-sasl2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A53A62868; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 12:57:47 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87k28fmqhu.fsf@web.de> (Arne Babenhauserheide's message of "Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:46:05 +0100") X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 151A9658-FC4D-11E6-B5D1-6141F2301B6D-02397024!pb-sasl2.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 64.147.108.67 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:18949 gmane.lisp.guile.user:13321 Archived-At: On Fri 24 Feb 2017 18:46, Arne Babenhauserheide writes: > The main strategical question I see for that is: Does anything make it > harder to complete or improve the lilypond transition to Guile 2? > > Is there something which would need to be done before 2.2 which could > make it easier for lilypond developers? I don't know of any concrete points here. 2.2 is not dissimilar to 2.0. If you someone like to try to determine exactly what specific bits of Guile 2.2 impact Lilypond (and indeed any big application using the C interface), that would be welcome :) I guess I'd start with NEWS to see what's up. Andy