From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Mr. Peter Ivanyi" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: The 1.6.1 release. Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:00:56 +0100 Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <3CA70888.33A32BF8@carme.sect.mce.hw.ac.uk> References: <87ofi5qm4a.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <87r8mxs5t8.fsf@tyrell.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017579854 18504 127.0.0.1 (31 Mar 2002 13:04:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:04:14 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16rf0H-0004oL-00 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:04:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16rezG-0008QZ-00; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 08:03:10 -0500 Original-Received: from carme.sect.mce.hw.ac.uk ([137.195.68.1]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16rexm-0008Ju-00 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 08:01:38 -0500 Original-Received: from carme.sect.mce.hw.ac.uk (mercury.sect.mce.hw.ac.uk [137.195.68.189]) by carme.sect.mce.hw.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id OAA13576; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:01:26 +0100 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15-3SGI_39 i686) X-Accept-Language: en Original-To: ttn@glug.org, "guile-user@gnu.org" Errors-To: guile-user-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:84 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:84 Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote: > > 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? > 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] Personally I "hate" the current situation with 2 development branches and I would really hate to have 3 or more development branches. So far I could not figure out what is the difference between 1.5.x and 1.7.x and why do 1.7.x exist at all ? Anyway, I would suggest that "bugs", which do not crash guile, should not be considered as "show-stoppers". For example, if I understand this bug 1004-socket-accept-blocks-all-threads just behaves in an unexpected way but guile still runs and maybe certain applications will have difficulty to use it, or cannot simply use it. So let just live with it for the moment. Secondly, a sort of common decision can be made about the main improvements in the next release. For example for 1.8 all gh interface should be transfered to scm. This would mean that all related bugs should be fixed, but other non-crashing bugs can be fixed, but are not going to stop the release. Peter Ivanyi _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user