Re: wish list

[Paolo Bonzini]

Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Paolo Bonzini on 3/30/2009 10:26 AM:
>> Eric Blake wrote:
>>> I'm interested in getting a beta-quality 2.64 release out the door soon.
>>> There are still known issues (primarily coverage of parallel autotest, but
>>> also a growing backlog of suggested improvements in my inbox) that prevent
>>> this from being a stable release.
>> Can you summarize these improvements?  Otherwise, parallel autotest can
>> be deemed experimental and not prevent the release to be considered stable.
> 
> Here's links to several issues that I have kept flagged in my inbox, but
> which have not been high enough priority for me to attempt any patches.  I
> personally don't think any of them are worth holding up the release of
> beta 2.64, but would like to address some of them before declaring a
> stable 2.65 (or 3.0?) release.

I'm a bit more draconian than you.  All of those issues (almost all) are
preexisting, or improvements.

I could not reproduce
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2008-11/msg00126.html
and of all issues you pointed out, only that one and
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-autoconf/2008-12/msg00030.html
seemed worth being fixed in a *stable* (2.64 or 3.0) release.

Everything else can be postponed to future stable releases.

So in my plan, do we think that an alpha.gnu.org release would add
anything?  Would anyone actually use it?  If no, let's go with a stable
release now.  If yes, let's do 2.64b and cut a branch to release
2.65/3.0 from in a month or two (no more - hard deadline); in the
meanwhile new features can be worked on in master.

Paolo