* Release time! @ 2012-11-05 18:11 Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-05 20:13 ` Hans Aberg ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2012-11-05 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guile-devel Hello! I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48, WDYT? By then, we should essentially squash as many bugs as possible. New features we may want to include: - functional setters, for SRFI-9 - ‘--r6rs’ and related R6RS things - Chris’s SRFI-41 Noteworthy bugs that come to mind: - CSE bug I recently hit - assertion failure hit when running srfi-18.test in a loop Anything else? Thanks, Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Release time! 2012-11-05 18:11 Release time! Ludovic Courtès @ 2012-11-05 20:13 ` Hans Aberg 2012-11-05 21:02 ` Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-05 20:53 ` Ludovic Courtès ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Hans Aberg @ 2012-11-05 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guile-devel On 5 Nov 2012, at 19:11, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48, > WDYT? FYI, this is the last week of November - a lot of countries do not use this week numbering system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-day_week#Week_numbering ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Release time! 2012-11-05 20:13 ` Hans Aberg @ 2012-11-05 21:02 ` Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-05 21:48 ` Hans Aberg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2012-11-05 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hans Aberg; +Cc: guile-devel Hi Hans, Hans Aberg <haberg-1@telia.com> skribis: > On 5 Nov 2012, at 19:11, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48, >> WDYT? > > FYI, this is the last week of November - a lot of countries do not use this week numbering system. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-day_week#Week_numbering Oh, interesting. I used the number Org gave me, and it starts on Nov. 26th, which apparently corresponds to the ISO 8601 week date. :-) Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Release time! 2012-11-05 21:02 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2012-11-05 21:48 ` Hans Aberg 2012-11-06 18:28 ` Ludovic Courtès 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Hans Aberg @ 2012-11-05 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guile-devel On 5 Nov 2012, at 22:02, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi Hans, Hi Ludo, > Hans Aberg <haberg-1@telia.com> skribis: > >> On 5 Nov 2012, at 19:11, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> >>> I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48, >>> WDYT? >> >> FYI, this is the last week of November - a lot of countries do not use this week numbering system. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-day_week#Week_numbering > > Oh, interesting. I used the number Org gave me, and it starts on > Nov. 26th, which apparently corresponds to the ISO 8601 week date. :-) Is Org the repository? Then perhaps people know about week numbers. In the US, for example, they are normally not used. Hans ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Release time! 2012-11-05 21:48 ` Hans Aberg @ 2012-11-06 18:28 ` Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-06 21:23 ` Hans Aberg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2012-11-06 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hans Aberg; +Cc: guile-devel Hi, Hans Aberg <haberg-1@telia.com> skribis: > On 5 Nov 2012, at 22:02, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> Hi Hans, > > Hi Ludo, > >> Hans Aberg <haberg-1@telia.com> skribis: >> >>> On 5 Nov 2012, at 19:11, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>> >>>> I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48, >>>> WDYT? >>> >>> FYI, this is the last week of November - a lot of countries do not use this week numbering system. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-day_week#Week_numbering >> >> Oh, interesting. I used the number Org gave me, and it starts on >> Nov. 26th, which apparently corresponds to the ISO 8601 week date. :-) > > Is Org the repository? I meant http://orgmode.org/ . > Then perhaps people know about week numbers. In the US, for example, they are normally not used. OK, thanks for the note. Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Release time! 2012-11-06 18:28 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2012-11-06 21:23 ` Hans Aberg 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Hans Aberg @ 2012-11-06 21:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guile-devel On 6 Nov 2012, at 19:28, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi, > > Hans Aberg <haberg-1@telia.com> skribis: > >> On 5 Nov 2012, at 22:02, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> >>> Hi Hans, >> >> Hi Ludo, >> >>> Hans Aberg <haberg-1@telia.com> skribis: >>> >>>> On 5 Nov 2012, at 19:11, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48, >>>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> FYI, this is the last week of November - a lot of countries do not use this week numbering system. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-day_week#Week_numbering >>> >>> Oh, interesting. I used the number Org gave me, and it starts on >>> Nov. 26th, which apparently corresponds to the ISO 8601 week date. :-) >> >> Is Org the repository? > > I meant http://orgmode.org/ . OK. Good to know. >> Then perhaps people know about week numbers. In the US, for example, they are normally not used. > > OK, thanks for the note. They use it a lot here in Sweden, for example, but in the US, I think they would likely not know what it is. Hans ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Release time! 2012-11-05 18:11 Release time! Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-05 20:13 ` Hans Aberg @ 2012-11-05 20:53 ` Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-05 22:38 ` Bruce Korb ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2012-11-05 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guile-devel ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > - assertion failure hit when running srfi-18.test in a loop This one turned out to be easy (it could be reproduced by running the "sleeping threads notified of abandonment" in a loop), and is fixed by 02a362a. Cool! :-) Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Release time! 2012-11-05 18:11 Release time! Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-05 20:13 ` Hans Aberg 2012-11-05 20:53 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2012-11-05 22:38 ` Bruce Korb 2012-11-06 18:29 ` Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-06 2:06 ` nalaginrut 2012-11-06 5:59 ` Mark H Weaver 4 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Bruce Korb @ 2012-11-05 22:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guile-devel On 11/05/12 10:11, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello! > > I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48, > WDYT? I think it would be Really Nice if it were not fiddling LD_LIBRARY_PATH by the next release. > By then, we should essentially squash as many bugs as possible. that bug is quite the nuisance for me.... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Release time! 2012-11-05 22:38 ` Bruce Korb @ 2012-11-06 18:29 ` Ludovic Courtès 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2012-11-06 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Korb; +Cc: guile-devel Hi Bruce, Bruce Korb <bkorb@gnu.org> skribis: > I think it would be Really Nice if it were not fiddling LD_LIBRARY_PATH > by the next release. Right, thanks for the reminder. I’ll see where we left it... Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Release time! 2012-11-05 18:11 Release time! Ludovic Courtès ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2012-11-05 22:38 ` Bruce Korb @ 2012-11-06 2:06 ` nalaginrut 2012-11-06 6:05 ` Mark H Weaver 2012-11-06 18:30 ` Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-06 5:59 ` Mark H Weaver 4 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: nalaginrut @ 2012-11-06 2:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guile-devel On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 19:11 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello! > > I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48, > WDYT? > > By then, we should essentially squash as many bugs as possible. > > New features we may want to include: > > - functional setters, for SRFI-9 > - ‘--r6rs’ and related R6RS things > - Chris’s SRFI-41 > And don't forget SRFI-105 ;-D And what about the status of ethread? > Noteworthy bugs that come to mind: > > - CSE bug I recently hit > - assertion failure hit when running srfi-18.test in a loop > > Anything else? > > Thanks, > Ludo’. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Release time! 2012-11-06 2:06 ` nalaginrut @ 2012-11-06 6:05 ` Mark H Weaver 2012-11-06 18:30 ` Ludovic Courtès 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Mark H Weaver @ 2012-11-06 6:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: nalaginrut; +Cc: guile-devel nalaginrut <nalaginrut@gmail.com> writes: > And don't forget SRFI-105 ;-D SRFI-105 is already in. Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Release time! 2012-11-06 2:06 ` nalaginrut 2012-11-06 6:05 ` Mark H Weaver @ 2012-11-06 18:30 ` Ludovic Courtès 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2012-11-06 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: nalaginrut; +Cc: guile-devel nalaginrut <nalaginrut@gmail.com> skribis: > And don't forget SRFI-105 ;-D It’s already in. > And what about the status of ethread? We were still debating whether to include it, how, etc. So not for this time. Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Release time! 2012-11-05 18:11 Release time! Ludovic Courtès ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2012-11-06 2:06 ` nalaginrut @ 2012-11-06 5:59 ` Mark H Weaver 2012-11-06 18:41 ` Ludovic Courtès 4 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Mark H Weaver @ 2012-11-06 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guile-devel ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48, > WDYT? Sounds good! Here are the items from my TODO list that I hope to do for 2.0.7: (and if anyone else wants to do any of these, that would be great!) * Move docs for SRFI-9 records into the "Compound Data Types" section of the manual, and move docs for the older structures and records into a "Low-level structures" section (with big warnings on top). * Fix thread-unsafe lazy initialization of 'scm_eval_string_in_module'. (and search for other similar bugs). * Deal with the LD_LIBRARY_PATH issue. * Make sure that curly-infix is disabled when reading elisp code. * Fix par-map and par-for-each to use all ncores, not ncores-1. * Fix decompile-tree-il to recognize 'case' statements properly, now that 'eqv?' is sometimes being optimized to 'eq?'. and maybe: * Figure out a way to make Guildhall modules that will be overridden by a matching module in core guile (if it exists). This is important for SRFIs. Ian Price's Guildhall repository contains portable implementions of several SRFIs that might become part of core Guile in the future, and the core versions should take priority. Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Release time! 2012-11-06 5:59 ` Mark H Weaver @ 2012-11-06 18:41 ` Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-06 21:35 ` Ian Price 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2012-11-06 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark H Weaver; +Cc: guile-devel Hi Mark, Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis: > Here are the items from my TODO list that I hope to do for 2.0.7: > (and if anyone else wants to do any of these, that would be great!) > > * Move docs for SRFI-9 records into the "Compound Data Types" section of > the manual, and move docs for the older structures and records into a > "Low-level structures" section (with big warnings on top). > > * Fix thread-unsafe lazy initialization of 'scm_eval_string_in_module'. > (and search for other similar bugs). > > * Deal with the LD_LIBRARY_PATH issue. > > * Make sure that curly-infix is disabled when reading elisp code. > > * Fix par-map and par-for-each to use all ncores, not ncores-1. > > * Fix decompile-tree-il to recognize 'case' statements properly, now > that 'eqv?' is sometimes being optimized to 'eq?'. Sounds good to me. Thanks for keeping track of that! > * Figure out a way to make Guildhall modules that will be overridden by > a matching module in core guile (if it exists). This is important for > SRFIs. Ian Price's Guildhall repository contains portable > implementions of several SRFIs that might become part of core Guile in > the future, and the core versions should take priority. Could guildhall use SRFI-0 to check whether a given SRFI is already provided by the host’s Guile, and determine based on that whether to install its own version? Thanks, Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Release time! 2012-11-06 18:41 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2012-11-06 21:35 ` Ian Price 2012-11-07 0:01 ` Andreas Rottmann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Ian Price @ 2012-11-06 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guile-devel [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp-2, Size: 1221 bytes --] ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court^[$(D+2^[(Bs) writes: >> * Figure out a way to make Guildhall modules that will be overridden by >> a matching module in core guile (if it exists). This is important for >> SRFIs. Ian Price's Guildhall repository contains portable >> implementions of several SRFIs that might become part of core Guile in >> the future, and the core versions should take priority. > > Could guildhall use SRFI-0 to check whether a given SRFI is already > provided by the host^[$B!G^[(Bs Guile, and determine based on that whether to > install its own version? Well, maybe I could hack something that uses srfi-0, but it sounds kinda ugly, and liable to break if a guile upgrade changed the features it exported. Right now, a package can declare multiple 'provides' so that you can e.g. require srfi-1 and it would pull in the appropriate package. But as it stands, the provides are somewhat orthogonal to how the code gets installed. Andreas, Guildhall is a friendly fork of Dorodango, so what do you think about adding this sort of thing? -- Ian Price -- shift-reset.com "Programming is like pinball. The reward for doing it well is the opportunity to do it again" - from "The Wizardy Compiled" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Release time! 2012-11-06 21:35 ` Ian Price @ 2012-11-07 0:01 ` Andreas Rottmann 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Andreas Rottmann @ 2012-11-07 0:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ian Price; +Cc: Ludovic Courtès, guile-devel Ian Price <ianprice90@googlemail.com> writes: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >>> * Figure out a way to make Guildhall modules that will be overridden by >>> a matching module in core guile (if it exists). This is important for >>> SRFIs. Ian Price's Guildhall repository contains portable >>> implementions of several SRFIs that might become part of core Guile in >>> the future, and the core versions should take priority. >> >> Could guildhall use SRFI-0 to check whether a given SRFI is already >> provided by the host’s Guile, and determine based on that whether to >> install its own version? > > Well, maybe I could hack something that uses srfi-0, but it sounds kinda > ugly, and liable to break if a guile upgrade changed the features it exported. > > Right now, a package can declare multiple 'provides' so that you can > e.g. require srfi-1 and it would pull in the appropriate package. But as > it stands, the provides are somewhat orthogonal to how the code gets > installed. > > Andreas, > Guildhall is a friendly fork of Dorodango, so what do you think about > adding this sort of thing? > I've thought about this issue some time ago, but have not yet come to a definite conclusion on how to handle this. A rough idea is to add a "proxy package" for the Scheme implementation of the destination (i.e. installation target) to the `dorodango-support' bundle, which is created upon initialization of the destination. If that proxy package would "provide" (e.g. based on a feature check) all SRFIs that are present in the target Scheme (aka "Guile" from now on), that would bring us closer to the goal. If all SRFIs required by the set of packages installed are indeed provided by Guile, no additional package would be pulled in. However, if a single package provides multiple SRFIs, of which only some are provided by Guile, that package will get installed to satisfy any requirements not met by the proxy package, and will thus *override* any core SRFI implementation in Guile that it provides as well. However, there's a reasonable (I think) workaround: no longer `provide' the SRFIs, but instead really use individual packages for them, so they can be installed on an individual basis. This is not as tedious as it might sound: the pkg-list.scm file would have to list each SRFI, but the collection of portable SRFIs can still be maintained in a single source repository and dorodango bundle (i.e. unit of distribution). Regards, Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann -- <http://rotty.yi.org/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-11-07 0:01 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-11-05 18:11 Release time! Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-05 20:13 ` Hans Aberg 2012-11-05 21:02 ` Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-05 21:48 ` Hans Aberg 2012-11-06 18:28 ` Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-06 21:23 ` Hans Aberg 2012-11-05 20:53 ` Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-05 22:38 ` Bruce Korb 2012-11-06 18:29 ` Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-06 2:06 ` nalaginrut 2012-11-06 6:05 ` Mark H Weaver 2012-11-06 18:30 ` Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-06 5:59 ` Mark H Weaver 2012-11-06 18:41 ` Ludovic Courtès 2012-11-06 21:35 ` Ian Price 2012-11-07 0:01 ` Andreas Rottmann
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).