Re: [Oorexx-devel] Planned commits

Hi René, On 16.09.2021 12:00, René Jansen wrote: > On the first one I don’t really have an opinion, except that we should avoid > the patch going > stale. On the second one: it should be a welcome addition, but I doubt we > really need it now.  > Reasons: > > - Not a fan of fat binaries: they te

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Planned commits

On 15.09.2021 18:27, Erich Steinböck wrote: > > "silence counts as approval" > > Rony, my silence is never consent, please stop suggesting that.I just didn't > get around to answering. Being on a few open-source projects there is one concept (from the Apache Software Foundation, ASF) that is

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Planned commits

Hi P.O., I had one that ran uninterrrupted from 2006 to last June - 2021 - and I switched it off because it made a noise and I did not want it to run unsupervised on Aruba, and catch fire. But there must be more people who have one … and yes, it was a joke, but with a serious part: I think that

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Planned commits

Dear René, When you write > > Power on the Mac Do you mean Power-PC driven Mac Pro? The last one sold was in 2005, some 16 years ago, is that REALLY something we should support? OR did I misunderstand you remark? PS If you had requested it two

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Planned commits

Dear Rony, > concurrency trace: I have no opinion on this feature, although it seems useful for those debugging multi-thread programs, but if it is a „showstopper“ for releasing 5.0.0 I would also tend to think it is better put in the pipeline for 5.0.1. But only if it is REALLY a hindrance to

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Planned commits

Hi Rony, On the first one I don’t really have an opinion, except that we should avoid the patch going stale. On the second one: it should be a welcome addition, but I doubt we really need it now. Reasons: - Not a fan of fat binaries: they tend to stay fat until unsupported - ooRexx currently b

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Planned commits

To be fair to Rony, he is not the only one keen to have a release and he has suggested holding back some features for a subsequent release. I won't rehash the reasons why we need a release - I think we are all familiar with them. So, can I suggest that we mark this enhancement (which I think is v

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Planned commits

Since you are the one pushing to get 5.0 released, why are you adding new features to the interpreter at this point? I'm OK with the MacOS changes, but I'm against adding any new features to 5.0. Rick On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 12:19 PM Rony G. Flatscher wrote: > As long as there is no architectur

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Planned commits

> > "silence counts as approval" > Rony, my silence is never consent, please stop suggesting that. I just didn't get around to answering. concurrency trace > I'm in favor of the concurrency trace feature request, but I dislike the suggested use of an environment variable. I'd rather use a new ::op