From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Stable branch will freeze. Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:05:46 -0800 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87vgbywwxp.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1016150994 28840 127.0.0.1 (15 Mar 2002 00:09:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:09:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16lfI9-0007V4-00 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:09:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16lfHk-0002Qw-00; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:09:28 -0500 Original-Received: from ca-crlsbd-u3-c5c-122.crlsca.adelphia.net ([68.64.59.122] helo=giblet) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16lfGq-0002L0-00 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:08:32 -0500 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16lfEA-0007cY-00; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:05:46 -0800 Original-To: mvo@zagadka.ping.de In-Reply-To: <87vgbywwxp.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> (message from Marius Vollmer on 15 Mar 2002 00:29:06 +0100) Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 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:58 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:58 From: Marius Vollmer Date: 15 Mar 2002 00:29:06 +0100 I just made the lonely decision to be more rigorous about the "stable" branch_release-1-6 branch. We need to be much more rigorous about really keeping the stable branch stable. From now on, only release critical, uncontroversial fixes will be allowed. I intend to be firm on this. We are not getting anywhere without restraining us from putting new stuff into the stable branch. Of course, it is already controversial exactly what is release critical. I'll just be deciding this. :) sorry, it sounds like you have some delusions of absolute control here. please get well soon (or demonstrate your position by removing my write privs so i can unsubscribe from guile development and use in good conscience -- TIA). Consequences: the guile-snarf changes need to be brought back to a state where guile-snarf is completely compatible with the last guile-snarf that has been installed. It can add features, but must not remove any. Also it should define SCM_MAGIC_SNARFER in addition to SCM_MAGIC_SNARF_INIT when pre-processing the C file. The fact that SCM_MAGIC_SNARFER is defined should be documented, while SCM_MAGIC_SNARF_INIT should not be documented. Thien-Thi, I can make these changes if you want me to. Please feel free to hack on guile-snarf in the HEAD branch. I really think your work on the snarfer is important, please don't get me wrong. i don't want you to make these changes because the changes do not support encapsulation and robustness, but i suspect you'll make them anyway. in the future someone will complain and someone will decide they need to be changed back. will you do those changes then, too? thi _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel