From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: The 1.6.1 release. Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:41:07 -0600 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87lmc8fp24.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> References: <87ofi5qm4a.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <87r8mxs5t8.fsf@tyrell.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017607458 2338 127.0.0.1 (31 Mar 2002 20:44:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:44:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: evan@glug.org, guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16rmBW-0000bb-00 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:44:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16rm9W-0000HN-00; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:42:14 -0500 Original-Received: from dsl-209-87-109-2.constant.com ([209.87.109.2] helo=defaultvalue.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16rm8Z-0000D2-00; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:41:15 -0500 Original-Received: from raven.i.defaultvalue.org (raven.i.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.7]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB8B5333F; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:41:08 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by raven.i.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B80F02037; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:41:07 -0600 (CST) Original-To: ttn@glug.org In-Reply-To: (Thien-Thi Nguyen's message of "Sat, 30 Mar 2002 16:21:22 -0800") Original-Lines: 32 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.2 (i386-debian-linux-gnu) Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:239 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:239 Thien-Thi Nguyen writes: > good question. > > IMO, the more branches there are the more PITA it is to maintain them. > this suggests that to cut ourselves slack we should delay branching > until things are *determined* to be stable (as opposed being *declared* > to be stable). I have no problem with this. This is what I'd intended for the next release. > to do a good determination means we need to define what are the > criteria for stability so that we can measure the living tree > against it. there is now workbook/build/stability.text (currently > empty) -- everyone please feel free to suggest items to add to that > file. As a practical definition, I'd love to see it move to the point where being ready for release was more just a matter of making sure all the release-critical TODO items had been done (which would include references into the bug tree), and that "make check" would complete without error on the "primary platforms". In particular, I'd like to see items added to "make check" whenever we have important problems that need fixing -- *before* we fix them. This wouldn't be appropriate for all problems, but for many I suspect it would. -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org Previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C 64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel