2.0.x branched!

2.0.x branched!

[Ludovic Courtès]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 369 bytes --]

Hello!

There’s now a ‘stable-2.0’ branch!

We’re releasing in less than 24 hours so normally nothing will be pushed
there.  :-)

There’s an additional jobset on Hydra for this branch:

  http://hydra.nixos.org/jobset/gnu/guile-2-0

Normally you should soon be able to grab a tarball from there and report
any serious issue.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: 2.0.x branched!

[Neil Jerram]

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hello!
>
> There’s now a ‘stable-2.0’ branch!
>
> We’re releasing in less than 24 hours so normally nothing will be pushed
> there.  :-)

Now that 2.0.0 is out, I presume the general procedure from now on
should be:

- committing safe 2.0.x stuff (in particular, as far as I'm concerned,
  docs) to the stable-2.0 branch

- committing anything else to master

- periodically merging from stable-2.0 to master.

Is that right?

      Neil

Re: 2.0.x branched!

[Andy Wingo]

On Fri 18 Feb 2011 21:37, Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

> Now that 2.0.0 is out, I presume the general procedure from now on
> should be:
>
> - committing safe 2.0.x stuff (in particular, as far as I'm concerned,
>   docs) to the stable-2.0 branch
>
> - committing anything else to master
>
> - periodically merging from stable-2.0 to master.
>
> Is that right?

That sounds about right to me, though I am quite ignorant in this
regard.  Compatible changes on 2.0.x seem fine to me; we should live in
2.0.x for a year or two I think.

Tough to plan for the future, though!

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: 2.0.x branched!

[Neil Jerram]

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> On Fri 18 Feb 2011 21:37, Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>
>> Now that 2.0.0 is out, I presume the general procedure from now on
>> should be:
>>
>> - committing safe 2.0.x stuff (in particular, as far as I'm concerned,
>>   docs) to the stable-2.0 branch
>>
>> - committing anything else to master
>>
>> - periodically merging from stable-2.0 to master.
>>
>> Is that right?
>
> That sounds about right to me, though I am quite ignorant in this
> regard.  Compatible changes on 2.0.x seem fine to me; we should live in
> 2.0.x for a year or two I think.
>
> Tough to plan for the future, though!

Cool, thanks!

    Neil

Re: 2.0.x branched!

[Mark H Weaver]

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
> Compatible changes on 2.0.x seem fine to me; we should live in 2.0.x
> for a year or two I think.

What do you mean by "live in 2.0.x"?  Does this mean that we should
avoid working on deeper changes to Guile for the next year or two?

What does this mean for my pending patches that support
arbitrary-precision floats and GOOPS-based numeric types?

It's too bad, because I'm all fired up to do a bunch of work on guile,
not just on numerics but other stuff too.  Bad timing, I guess.

I don't mean to apply pressure here.  I can appreciate the issues faced
by maintainers, who must balance stability vs new development, and I
very much appreciate that you applied so many of my patches so soon
before the 2.0.0 release.

     Best,
      Mark

Re: 2.0.x branched!

[Andy Wingo]

Hi Mark,

On Sat 19 Feb 2011 00:54, Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:

> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>> Compatible changes on 2.0.x seem fine to me; we should live in 2.0.x
>> for a year or two I think.
>
> What do you mean by "live in 2.0.x"?  Does this mean that we should
> avoid working on deeper changes to Guile for the next year or two?

I expressed myself poorly there.  What I meant was that we should aim
for a 2.2.0 release within a year ot two; and that in the meantime we
should focus on consolidating our gains with the 2.0 series.  We need to
get 2.0 into the distros, to see wider use of 2.0, and that will take a
little time.

I did not mean to discourage work on master, no.  I actually meant to
encourage those changes that are compatible with 2.0 to go on the
stable-2.0 branch.

> What does this mean for my pending patches that support
> arbitrary-precision floats and GOOPS-based numeric types?

They would go on master, because they would probably be incompatible
with 2.0.0.  Speaking of which, can you ask to be added to the Guile
group on Savannah?  That will allow you to commit directly.  I would
like for you to continue to mail your patches to the list before
pushing, just to make sure we're all on the same page.  If everything
goes well this would become less necessary over time.

> It's too bad, because I'm all fired up to do a bunch of work on guile,
> not just on numerics but other stuff too.  Bad timing, I guess.

Let's hack :)  I plan on being a little less responsive over the next
couple months than I have been recently, so patience remains a virtue ;)
But there's loads of things to do, and your careful and courageous work
has been much appreciated!

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: 2.0.x branched!

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Andy,

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
> [...] What I meant was that we should aim for a 2.2.0 release within a
> year ot two; and that in the meantime we should focus on consolidating
> our gains with the 2.0 series.  We need to get 2.0 into the distros,
> to see wider use of 2.0, and that will take a little time.
>
> I did not mean to discourage work on master, no.  I actually meant to
> encourage those changes that are compatible with 2.0 to go on the
> stable-2.0 branch.

Sounds reasonable.

>> What does this mean for my pending patches that support
>> arbitrary-precision floats and GOOPS-based numeric types?
>
> They would go on master, because they would probably be incompatible
> with 2.0.0.  Speaking of which, can you ask to be added to the Guile
> group on Savannah?  That will allow you to commit directly.  I would
> like for you to continue to mail your patches to the list before
> pushing, just to make sure we're all on the same page.  If everything
> goes well this would become less necessary over time.

Excellent!  I've just made the request on Savannah.  Of course I'll
continue to post patches and wait for feedback.

> I plan on being a little less responsive over the next couple months
> than I have been recently, so patience remains a virtue ;)

Certainly no one could fault you for that.  I've been amazed at how
quickly you've been reviewing non-trivial patches.  I wouldn't expect
anyone to keep that up for long :)

    Best,
     Mark

Re: 2.0.x branched!

[Andy Wingo]

Hey Mark,

On Sat 19 Feb 2011 19:25, Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:

> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>> can you ask to be added to the Guile group on Savannah?  That will
>> allow you to commit directly.  I would like for you to continue to
>> mail your patches to the list before pushing, just to make sure we're
>> all on the same page.  If everything goes well this would become less
>> necessary over time.
>
> Excellent!  I've just made the request on Savannah.  Of course I'll
> continue to post patches and wait for feedback.

I've added you to the group.  Welcome!

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: 2.0.x branched!

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Guilers!

I agree with your suggestions.

I think ‘stable-2.0’ should only get changes that preserve the C ABI and
Scheme interface.

Additions of new public functions/procedures or modules are generally
welcome though they should discussed on a case-by-case basis IMO.

Thanks,
Ludo’.