merge from 1.8 branch

merge from 1.8 branch

[Kevin Ryde]

I did another dreaded merge from 1.8 onto the head, mostly bits and
pieces by me.  As usual the diff between the two can be seen (from a
head checkout dir) with

	cvs diff -r branch_release-1-8 -r HEAD

It's a shame the diff is growing.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: merge from 1.8 branch

[Neil Jerram]

Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:

> It's a shame the diff is growing.

Why do you say that?  Do you think that all the dev work we do should
be going into the 1.8 stable series?

Regards,
     Neil



_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: merge from 1.8 branch

[Kevin Ryde]

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>
> Why do you say that?  Do you think that all the dev work we do should
> be going into the 1.8 stable series?

Yep.  Vote for more out sooner.  (Until something fundamental diverges
wildly of course ...)


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: merge from 1.8 branch

[Neil Jerram]

Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:

> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>>
>> Why do you say that?  Do you think that all the dev work we do should
>> be going into the 1.8 stable series?
>
> Yep.  Vote for more out sooner.  (Until something fundamental diverges
> wildly of course ...)

I guess I could copy all my debugging and Emacs interface stuff into
1.8.x; it's all only documentation and Scheme code, after all, so
couldn't hurt much.  Any votes for or objections to this?

Regards,
     Neil



_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: merge from 1.8 branch

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

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

> I guess I could copy all my debugging and Emacs interface stuff into
> 1.8.x; it's all only documentation and Scheme code, after all, so
> couldn't hurt much.  Any votes for or objections to this?

I vote for!

Thanks,
Ludovic.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: merge from 1.8 branch

[Rob Browning]

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

> I guess I could copy all my debugging and Emacs interface stuff into
> 1.8.x; it's all only documentation and Scheme code, after all, so
> couldn't hurt much.  Any votes for or objections to this?

If the changes are extremely unlikely break existing code that's based
on 1.8, then I probably wouldn't object.

I suppose the hard restriction we have is that we can't change
existing APIs (C or Scheme) in backward incompatible ways during the
stable series.

Of course we could also just shift 1.8 into maintenance mode, start
focusing on the main branch, and plan to release 1.10 sooner.  I'd be
open to that as well.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: merge from 1.8 branch

[Neil Jerram]

Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>
>> I guess I could copy all my debugging and Emacs interface stuff into
>> 1.8.x; it's all only documentation and Scheme code, after all, so
>> couldn't hurt much.  Any votes for or objections to this?
>
> If the changes are extremely unlikely break existing code that's based
> on 1.8, then I probably wouldn't object.
>
> I suppose the hard restriction we have is that we can't change
> existing APIs (C or Scheme) in backward incompatible ways during the
> stable series.

Yes, I think those are good guidelines.  (And according to those, I
believe I can proceed.)

> Of course we could also just shift 1.8 into maintenance mode, start
> focusing on the main branch, and plan to release 1.10 sooner.  I'd be
> open to that as well.

How would that be different from the current situation?  (In other
words, in what sense is 1.8 not already in maintenance mode?)

Regards,
     Neil



_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: merge from 1.8 branch

[Rob Browning]

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

>> Of course we could also just shift 1.8 into maintenance mode, start
>> focusing on the main branch, and plan to release 1.10 sooner.  I'd
>> be open to that as well.
>
> How would that be different from the current situation?  (In other
> words, in what sense is 1.8 not already in maintenance mode?)

I was mostly just thinking about the range of options (in general)
between taking the position that 1.8 should only allow bugfixes, and
that any new development should go into 1.10, and taking a more
liberal position as (in part) a way to release new features sooner (at
least those that don't break backward compatibility).  Of course in
the former case, there would be more pressure for a earlier 1.10
release.

Of course each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, both
from the developer's perspective, and the user's perspective.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel