From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@giblet.glug.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user
Subject: Re: [d.love@dl.ac.uk: dynamic loading of native code modules]
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 01:53:45 -0700
Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org
Message-ID: <abqjqd$kaa$2@main.gmane.org>
References: <E16vpWV-0001wJ-00@giblet>
	<m3n0w8ugmp.fsf@laruns.ossau.uklinux.net>
	<874rifqeo8.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org>
	<m3bsclsyxn.fsf@laruns.ossau.uklinux.net>
	<873cxxkvj8.fsf@zagadka.ping.de>
	<m3n0w3pf1n.fsf@laruns.ossau.uklinux.net>
	<874riahonj.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <E16ypgs-0003jQ-00@giblet> <87ofgdqdr9.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org>
Reply-To: ttn@glug.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1021366925 20810 127.0.0.1 (14 May 2002 09:02:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 09:02:05 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org
Return-path: <guile-user-admin@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian))
	id 177YC5-0005PX-00
	for <guile-user@m.gmane.org>; Tue, 14 May 2002 11:02:05 +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 177YAA-0001Kb-00; Tue, 14 May 2002 05:00:06 -0400
Original-Received: from ca-crlsbd-u5-c4a-a-172.crlsca.adelphia.net ([24.48.214.172] helo=giblet)
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian))
	id 177Y83-00013r-00; Tue, 14 May 2002 04:57:56 -0400
Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 177Y41-00008J-00; Tue, 14 May 2002 01:53:45 -0700
Original-To: rlb@defaultvalue.org
In-Reply-To: <87ofgdqdr9.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob
	Browning on Sun, 21 Apr 2002 10:20:58 -0500)
Errors-To: guile-user-admin@gnu.org
X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:guile-user-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:guile-user@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user>,
	<mailto:guile-user-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: General Guile related discussions <guile-user.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user>,
	<mailto:guile-user-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/guile-user/>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:413
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:413

   From: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>
   Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 10:20:58 -0500

   Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@giblet.glug.org> writes:

   > we can make incompatibilities non-gratuituous by reflecting them in the
   > version numbering (more "descriptive" thinking here).  by this method,
   > the next official guile should be "2.x" -- what do people think of that?

   Not sure I follow what you mean by "by this method".

   IMO we should bump the major version to 2.0 whenever we made changes
   that we feel warrant it.  Things I would consider warranting such a
   change:

     - Restructuring of the evaluation system and macros so that we can
       add compilation (and by compilation I mean anything like VM, JIT,
       offline->c, whatever).

     - Support for elisp that's ready for public use.

     - Performance improvement of large factors due to overhaul of XYZ.

     - Full numeric tower.

"by this method" means considering major incompatiblities as another
thing that warrants a major version change (in addition to new features,
as you've suggested).

thi

_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user