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,gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Guile release planning Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:00:16 +0100 Message-ID: References: <49dd78620811101723m6b014589ua01037d5ea3f17b9@mail.gmail.com> <3ae3aa420811101944m23d7a72ch992c253326f7e236@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1226435233 7042 80.91.229.12 (11 Nov 2008 20:27:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:27:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user , guile-devel , Neil Jerram To: linasvepstas@gmail.com Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 11 21:28:13 2008 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 4.50) id 1KzzqL-0000BI-5f for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:28:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44218 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KzzpD-0001Lh-Go for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:26:59 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kzzna-0000HW-Ch for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:25:18 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KzznY-0000GN-Gc for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:25:17 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42904 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KzznY-0000GB-Bn; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:25:16 -0500 Original-Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:38815 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KzznY-0001PY-6O; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:25:16 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E320F97863; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:25:08 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [81.38.183.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D2F569785D; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:24:50 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3ae3aa420811101944m23d7a72ch992c253326f7e236@mail.gmail.com> (Linas Vepstas's message of "Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:44:42 -0600") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D5891096-B02E-11DD-BABD-4F5276724C3F-02397024!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:7827 gmane.lisp.guile.user:6876 Archived-At: Hi Linas, On Tue 11 Nov 2008 04:44, "Linas Vepstas" writes: > 2008/11/10 Neil Jerram : >> >> I also think it will help us manage API incompatibilities better. I >> think our default position from now on should be to maintain >> source-level (API) compatibility, but it is inevitable that there will >> be exceptions to this. > > Any ideas for binary compatibility for the "micro" revisions? I think it needs to be guaranteed. > I recently discovered that a library compiled against 1.8.3 > would core dump when used with an application compiled > against 1.8.5. Ooh, bummer. The 1.8 series is binary-compatible (i.e. 1.8.x is compatible with 1.8.y if x >= y), *but* only if compiled in the same way. An example of compiling in different ways is if you build against a guile with --disable-threads, but then rebuild guile with --enable-threads, or vice versa. Probably what happened to you? > The linux kernel got rid of the stable/unstable branch idea, > and it's worked really really well. (the reasons why are > widely documented) I'm for it. The linux kernel doesn't guarantee ABI /or/ API stability -- it's a different kettle of fish. Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/