From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Stable releases Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 14:21:02 +0000 Message-ID: <87psb2bcq9.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <87bqn5n48n.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <8764dai81b.fsf@laas.fr> <871wnyf25z.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> <87mz6kea8c.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87y7q3zjpe.fsf@laas.fr> <87wt5mrqbj.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> <87hcwkms2o.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <873b84ymfg.fsf@laas.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1165069338 19516 80.91.229.2 (2 Dec 2006 14:22:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 14:22:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Guile Development Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 02 15:22:17 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GqVkr-0006E0-Uz for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:22:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GqVkr-0007bt-I8 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:22:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GqVkm-0007bd-Pq for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:22:08 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GqVkl-0007bL-Im for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:22:07 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GqVkl-0007bH-FM for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:22:07 -0500 Original-Received: from [80.84.72.33] (helo=mail3.uklinux.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GqVkk-0003g5-Vw for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:22:07 -0500 Original-Received: from laruns (host86-145-51-69.range86-145.btcentralplus.com [86.145.51.69]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E7D540A888; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 14:22:05 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from laruns (laruns [127.0.0.1]) by laruns (Postfix) with ESMTP id B264270365; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 14:21:02 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: Rob Browning In-Reply-To: <873b84ymfg.fsf@laas.fr> ( =?iso-8859-1?q?Ludovic_Court=E8s's_message_of?= "Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:01:39 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:6274 Archived-At: ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: > I share your concerns about having a really stable series, where new > releases can be made with minimal overhead. > > That said, I'm afraid adopting a strict stable policy might have > undesirable side-effects. In particular, it might be the case that > either users would end up always using the unstable series (because they > don't want to wait for one year to get some new tiny feature), or we > would end up creating new stable series so often that they'd be really > unstable (I think the former is more or less what happens with Debian). Well we have always had a strict stable policy until very recently, so there should already be evidence one way or the other. I don't have any numbers, but I am pretty sure (anecdotally) that we have had most users sticking to the stable releases, and a smaller number going unstable by using either CVS or the nightly snapshots. That sounds fine to me. The point is that people know what their choice means and so set their expectations accordingly. Under my proposal - i.e. strict stable policy + unstable releases - the only thing that would change is that it would be easier for the more experimental users to get at the unstable code. If your main concern is getting new stuff out to the users who want to experiment with it, I would have thought that making unstable releases would meet that concern. Does it? As I asked before: is there some way that we can specify when or how we would make an unstable release, that would give you enough confidence about new stuff being made available? If we went with your preference - i.e. allowing Scheme-level and certain C-level enhancements into 1.8.x - I suspect that before long we would be asked to reinvent the concept of a strictly stable 1.8.1.x series. We'd then end up in the same state as I'm proposing, but with less obvious numbering. Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel