From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel,gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: GNU Guile 3.0.3 released Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:15:38 +0200 Message-ID: <87r1u4wqo5.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87imfk8724.fsf@gnu.org> <20200622215026.f231e44aea6973830cde8f35@gmail.com> <87sgem436o.fsf@gnu.org> <20200623103618.7baacc879e122002e3129084@gmail.com> <87o8p83bvq.fsf@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="54089"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: guile-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:E2sxILBIAXAT4rD8VSt6VESOlWI= Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 24 15:21:25 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jo5LB-000DzB-I2 for guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:21:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57346 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jo5LA-0001Jz-Jv for guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:21:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42538) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jo5Fq-0001oB-TO for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:15:54 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([159.69.161.202]:45736) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jo5Fp-0005G2-35 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:15:54 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jo5Fm-0007QM-FF for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:15:50 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Followup-To: gmane.lisp.guile.devel X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 7 Messidor an 228 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Received-SPF: pass client-ip=159.69.161.202; envelope-from=guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/06/24 07:48:52 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -8 X-Spam_score: -0.9 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (-0.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.lisp.guile.devel:20551 gmane.lisp.guile.user:16615 Archived-At: Hello, Andy Wingo skribis: > On Tue 23 Jun 2020 11:36, Chris Vine writes: [...] >>> I was hesitant about the SONAME: the ABI jump was unnecessary unless in >>> ‘--disable-deprecated’ builds. I erred on the side of cautiousness: >>> >>> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/commit/?id=5d052c87bd8f0fd894e67f0bebd4fa6f6160d83c >> >> Hi, >> >> Ah right. There must have been two SO breaks between guile-3.0.2 and >> guile-3.0.3. >> >> It's a nuisance having SO bumps on micro releases and I wonder if that >> could be included in the announcement so that you don't first notice it >> when stuff fails to run? > > I think I agree with Chris. The intention is certainly to have a stable > ABI within a stable series, so 3.0.3 should have the same CURRENT. > > It's certainly correct that a --disable-deprecated 3.0.3 build has a > different ABI than 3.0.2, and if that were what we were looking at, we > would indeed need the CURRENT version bump; but I think the premise is > wrong: we do *not* have a stable ABI in --disable-deprecated builds, and > we never have. Otherwise we wouldn't ever be able to deprecate anything > within a stable series. Following our discussion on IRC, I agree with restoring CURRENT and will push a 3.0.4 in that direction. Apologies for the annoyance! Ludo’.