Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think we probably have taken a wrong turn, because I don't think > the 1.8.x that we are on the verge of producing can be described any > more as a "stable" series. Surely the common connotations of > "stable" are that the API is as unchanging as possible, and that the > code is only changed in order to fix non-trivial bugs?
I think I'd be in favor of fixing trivial bugs too, as long as the fixes are extremely unlikely to cause any other trouble, but other than that I agree. > Therefore, my feeling now is that we should revert to traditional > "stable" handling for 1.8.x. This would mean not merging > enhancements from HEAD such as my debugging stuff and Ludovic's text > collation work. It would also mean that Rob's comments about > limited testing requirement hold. > > As far as releasing exciting new stuff is concerned, I suggest we > just make unstable 1.9.x releases every now and then. We should > flag these very clearly as unstable, and not really worry at all > about testing them. You have fairly accurately summarized the way I would prefer to handle things, but it hasn't been completely clear to me that that's what everyone else wants. In general I would prefer to be very conservative with the stable series, and just plan to create a new stable series as often as needed. -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
