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: complex number reader bug? Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:30:42 +0200 Message-ID: <8763ecrq7h.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20081018194523.M24362@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> <87prcljkp4.fsf@arudy.ossau.uklinux.net> <873a9g1atv.fsf@arudy.ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1246487594 14492 80.91.229.12 (1 Jul 2009 22:33:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 22:33:14 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 02 00:33:07 2009 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 4.50) id 1MM8MV-00044i-8K for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:33:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59544 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MM8MU-0006DX-Ct for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:33:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MM8Kb-0005CF-5N for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:31:09 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MM8KV-00058K-UA for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:31:08 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52626 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MM8KV-000586-N0 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:31:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:28087) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MM8KV-0002uo-8g for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:31:03 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MM8KT-0007BF-H5 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:31:01 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MM8KO-00065d-2R for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:30:56 +0000 Original-Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:30:56 +0000 Original-Received: from ludo by reverse-83.fdn.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:30:56 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 35 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: reverse-83.fdn.fr X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 14 Messidor an 217 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: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:CbH+JA7vK3++aWHXPVxutOjSFOI= X-Detected-Operating-System: by mx20.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:8820 Archived-At: Hello, Neil Jerram writes: > Firstly, now that 1.9.0 has been released, I'm not sure it makes sense > for 1.9.x NEWS to refer to `Changes in 1.8.x' for x >= 7. IMO, when 2.0 is released, we really want to show changes since the 1.8.x series, i.e., essentially broad changes, rather than changes compared to a specific 1.8 release. Normally, all bug fixes that apply both to 1.8 and `master' will be indeed applied to both branches. Thus, bug fixes like this one should not appear under "Changes between 2.0 and 1.8.x". > Secondly, are we going to retain the distinctions between the 1.9.x > releases, once 2.0 is released? I would guess yes, because I see no > point in discarding information that might be useful. IIRC Andy suggested that the current 1.9.0 entries would evolve until 2.0 is actually out. IOW, the NEWS that will come with 2.0+ would not even mention the 1.9 releases. I think it's the right approach, given that 1.9.x releases are development releases. OTOH, it also makes sense to record changes between 1.9.n and 1.9.(n + 1) so that testers have an idea of what has happened recently. Concretely, that would mean maintaining two NEWS file though (say, NEWS and NEWS-1.9), which is slightly annoying. Regrettably, the GNU Standards don't say anything about how to manage the NEWS file in the presence of parallel stable/unstable branches (info "(standards) NEWS Files"). Thanks, Ludo'.