[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ice-9/getopt-long.scm + 1.5.1 please? + time-based 1.5.x?
From: |
Rob Browning |
Subject: |
Re: ice-9/getopt-long.scm + 1.5.1 please? + time-based 1.5.x? |
Date: |
21 Aug 2001 09:11:18 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 |
Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden> writes:
> i think you understimate the power of enabling ordinary users to be
> beta testers. broad public consumption is the best way to get broad
> public feedback, which is to be encouraged, not feared. generally,
> i don't believe it's wise (or even possible!) to decide for users
> what they are ready to handle.
I think we may be having a misunderstanding. I don't disagree with
you at all here. I'm happy for the beta to be very public. I was
just talking about the numbering convention.
As with the Linux kernel, I have no problems with our test versions
being widely distributed/discussed. I just didn't want them to end up
packaged in an OS distribution, for example, unless there were
extenuating circumstances. I'd also be happy to use an
ftp.gnu.org/pub/guile/{stable,unstable} setup if people would like
that better, and if the FSF doesn't mind.
In any case, I'm not all that picky. I just want to get the thing
tested and released ASAP :>
> as an experiment, i've forwarded the 1.5.1 announcement to
> guile-user. let's study where the bug reports come from (and their
> quality) -- i suspect there will be a few from guile-user that might
> not have shown up had we restricted announcement to the original
> recipient list. IMHO, future announcements should be sent to
> guile-user as a matter of course.
Not sending it to guile-user was just an oversight. I totally agree
that it should have been sent there. Apologies.
Thanks
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C 64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD