From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: 2.0.x branched! Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:16:31 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87sjvpguvj.fsf@gnu.org> <87aahtm63o.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87k4gw2929.fsf@netris.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1298121115 27757 80.91.229.12 (19 Feb 2011 13:11:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:11:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 19 14:11:51 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PqmbE-0006JE-2i for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:11:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33040 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PqmbC-0006r4-N3 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:46 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50197 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pqmb5-0006p8-1c for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:39 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pqmb3-0002Sl-Us for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:38 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:57456 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pqmb3-0002SL-SU for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:37 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABC9C3B1E; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:12:45 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=t018PYBay/44+MK2k7QNsMFHETc=; b=nspqN6 wbmg+hJURRh3N8UPQU1Ha0dW3MCDJVGi3RVRB+dVTuqSM2TPDodLoi9DFXjwj/YT cJ1dE1yA3hZkVsDfSRTsL7XJyMNU31iF5gfLGZ4xD6pYVsga/peeWnS0RDLWL+0o 2T7TyIuxF7xG7v+OqCOMSFKRA3u0CDHEUSm64= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=wi95KGgjjDP0xMaIo2o7uDSPPGc5wC4Q oKrh3sKCAI3/fiIJa/cddL7t6Yr7n9r8MvGTxx6wb7M72OLRScf3gCFC9y5KHa36 PaAvuNe8AVCun76LlKbOUEPc1Kb4ZM3RMCs/tYx6FRzz+CVnZKJBAgI2zXDK48WW SEH0O7bv5tQ= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D793B1D; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:12:44 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6DA63B1C; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:12:42 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87k4gw2929.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Fri, 18 Feb 2011 18:54:06 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F0691B48-3C29-11E0-9857-AF401E47CF6F-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 64.74.157.62 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:11663 Archived-At: Hi Mark, On Sat 19 Feb 2011 00:54, Mark H Weaver writes: > Andy Wingo writes: >> Compatible changes on 2.0.x seem fine to me; we should live in 2.0.x >> for a year or two I think. > > What do you mean by "live in 2.0.x"? Does this mean that we should > avoid working on deeper changes to Guile for the next year or two? I expressed myself poorly there. What I meant was that we should aim for a 2.2.0 release within a year ot two; and that in the meantime we should focus on consolidating our gains with the 2.0 series. We need to get 2.0 into the distros, to see wider use of 2.0, and that will take a little time. I did not mean to discourage work on master, no. I actually meant to encourage those changes that are compatible with 2.0 to go on the stable-2.0 branch. > What does this mean for my pending patches that support > arbitrary-precision floats and GOOPS-based numeric types? They would go on master, because they would probably be incompatible with 2.0.0. Speaking of which, can you ask to be added to the Guile group on Savannah? That will allow you to commit directly. I would like for you to continue to mail your patches to the list before pushing, just to make sure we're all on the same page. If everything goes well this would become less necessary over time. > It's too bad, because I'm all fired up to do a bunch of work on guile, > not just on numerics but other stuff too. Bad timing, I guess. Let's hack :) I plan on being a little less responsive over the next couple months than I have been recently, so patience remains a virtue ;) But there's loads of things to do, and your careful and courageous work has been much appreciated! Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/