On Oct 5, 2009, at 12:53 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > Stefan Behnel wrote: >> Lisandro Dalcin wrote: >>> Sorry, I'm lost ... Can any of you explicitly explain what the new >>> repo names are going to be? BTW, if we are going to leave a legacy >>> 0.11.3 branch, it would be clear to rename it to cython-release-0.11 >>> or something like that... >> >> Ah, now that you mention it: Cython 0.11.3 didn't make it to the >> "cython" >> branch. >> >> We should make Cython 0.11.3 "cython" now and "cython-0.11" when >> Cython >> 0.12 gets released, and Cython 0.12 "cython-devel" now and >> "cython" when it >> gets released (with continued development in "cython-devel"). >> >> Let's see when we start needing a new "cython-unstable" then. > > IMO cython-closures should be our new cython-unstable, to make sure it > is tested and merged and keep the number of (cooperative) branches > down.
Lets leave cython-closures as cython-closures, until we feel it is stable enough to merge (and, with the latest patch, hopefully soon :), and only go to using -unstable when we really need it for something wildly crazy and potentially (but temporarily) very broken (like the temp refactoring). > And I think that if there's possibilities of a bug day, it would be > good > to take it before 0.12 to knock off all those small irritating "Cython > crashes" bugs. But I guess that shouldn't hold off 0.12 for too > long, we > can do a 0.12.1 a month later anyway. Yes, how about the 10th or 17th of this month (next Saturday, or the next) for a Cython bugs day? We could cut a beta right after that. - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
