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: The 1.6.1 release. Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 16:21:22 -0800 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87ofi5qm4a.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <87r8mxs5t8.fsf@tyrell.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017534285 30732 127.0.0.1 (31 Mar 2002 00:24:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:24:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 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 16rT9I-0007zZ-00 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:24:45 +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 16rT97-0000s2-00; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:24:33 -0500 Original-Received: from ca-crlsbd-u4-c4c-174.crlsca.adelphia.net ([68.66.186.174] helo=giblet) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16rT8V-0000ok-00; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:23:55 -0500 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16rT62-0003Dh-00; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 16:21:22 -0800 Original-To: evan@glug.org 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:234 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:234 From: Evan Prodromou Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 16:13:39 -0600 So, for my own clarification, once 1.5.x becomes "blessed" into 1.6.x, what happens in CVS? Will there still be 2 branches, one stable and one unstable? Or will a third branch, 1.9.x, start happening at that point? Or later, when 1.7.x is starting to look like 1.8.x? 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). 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. [cc guile-user] thi _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel