Re: 2.0.x branched!

[Andy Wingo]

Hi Mark,

On Sat 19 Feb 2011 00:54, Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> writes:

> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
>> Compatible changes on 2.0.x seem fine to me; we should live in 2.0.x
>> for a year or two I think.
>
> What do you mean by "live in 2.0.x"?  Does this mean that we should
> avoid working on deeper changes to Guile for the next year or two?

I expressed myself poorly there.  What I meant was that we should aim
for a 2.2.0 release within a year ot two; and that in the meantime we
should focus on consolidating our gains with the 2.0 series.  We need to
get 2.0 into the distros, to see wider use of 2.0, and that will take a
little time.

I did not mean to discourage work on master, no.  I actually meant to
encourage those changes that are compatible with 2.0 to go on the
stable-2.0 branch.

> What does this mean for my pending patches that support
> arbitrary-precision floats and GOOPS-based numeric types?

They would go on master, because they would probably be incompatible
with 2.0.0.  Speaking of which, can you ask to be added to the Guile
group on Savannah?  That will allow you to commit directly.  I would
like for you to continue to mail your patches to the list before
pushing, just to make sure we're all on the same page.  If everything
goes well this would become less necessary over time.

> It's too bad, because I'm all fired up to do a bunch of work on guile,
> not just on numerics but other stuff too.  Bad timing, I guess.

Let's hack :)  I plan on being a little less responsive over the next
couple months than I have been recently, so patience remains a virtue ;)
But there's loads of things to do, and your careful and courageous work
has been much appreciated!

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/