From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: GNU Guile 2.0.4 released Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:46:58 +0100 Message-ID: <87lioougq5.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87mx946ha2.fsf@gnu.org> <87ty3c51x1.fsf@gnu.org> <877h083kha.fsf@gnu.org> <874nvcw6nv.fsf@pobox.com> <87hazcknzr.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1328017723 31304 80.91.229.3 (31 Jan 2012 13:48:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:48:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 31 14:48:39 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RsE4b-000156-GO for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:48:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42168 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RsE4b-0006lb-1I for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:48:37 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49505) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RsE4P-0006Kh-NR for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:48:35 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RsE35-0000n5-Oc for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:47:09 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:53227 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RsE35-0000my-KV; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:47:03 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023B17448; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:47:03 -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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=UdEtO8uLce3g 4g9huOiTs2WK7YQ=; b=AeW5OnHm9L1PCHzzaz7NGFpxYycEuPgwvTAe01AW3kFd HRpSeyMX+uiSRtMua+Hw1reAm0wd4nQJrxyR8cybSSSWjAfPXrfEFfKnBXGRiR7F pT3mbqbBDUfQf7QdurN+pjwoBXQViNcxfe9sN4B/GjRJb2mcprchGf09BnmNoCU= 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:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=E7PN3H HpZcumEp9wc1t8Lu03KHK2NIm7RF9SI2n8IrPD5Qb9Kjxm/cTddDplsNqec5zin2 HansZAgnwDwjhZyR0o8w1llY55WUGIwqwWYbguYXot5UrdOSjW5p+3sysLOeh+l+ qTUmjYOniD84e43s24RwVYNrDdyqrWfneybbM= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF81F7447; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:47:02 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [85.50.103.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C9E37446; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:47:02 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87hazcknzr.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:20:08 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0DF5FAD4-4C12-11E1-852B-65B1DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:13762 Archived-At: On Tue 31 Jan 2012 14:20, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Regarding bug fixing, there=E2=80=99s probably room for improvement. For > instance, when a bug is filed, we could assign a target release for the > fix, and stick to it. Perhaps we could have a more formal freeze window > also, during which we would only fix new bugs and be extremely > conservative about anything else. I don't know. Releases are also energetic times, when people become more active -- and it's not always activity that can be redirected to fixing bugs, unfortunately :/ So if we're too strict, we might lose some of that without it going in other productive directions. The local-eval thing was not satisfying for many reasons, and it did delay the release. Still, it's good to have it in and settled. > What do you think? I guess in summary: I don't know :) Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/