chicken-hackers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Updating stability...


From: Felix
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] Updating stability...
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:24:48 +0100 (CET)

> The ones that depend on the Win 64 bit patch could be rewritten to apply 
> without it,
> but it's a little hairy.  Can someone vouch for the patch?  Otherwise I will
> probably defer those changes.

I suggest to defer it.

> 
> The patch depending on flymake/elisp could have the latter added with no 
> problem,
> but those files aren't ever added to the manifest, so this change would have 
> no
> effect in a distribution tarball.  [I consider this change to be 
> user-invisible
> as far as stability goes anyway, as it has no functional effect and can be
> retrieved from git if someone wants it.]  If people still want it in 
> stability,
> we need to patch the manifest in master.

I forgot to add them to the manifest. I'll push a patch in a minute. I don't
think this stuff is needed in stability, though.

> 
> The symbol GC patch is skipped as per C-Keen.  In fact given the troubles with
> symbol GC, I am fine with declaring symbol GC as WONTFIX in 4.8.0.x and
> disabling the stupid test, at least until it's absolutely rock solid.

Yes, that sounds good.

> I want to note that although I did apply nearly everything since
> Peter was kind enough to find appropriate patches, I think it is not 
> really necessary to put so many patches into stability, just because it
> is a lot of work for everybody.  (We have already hit 50, exceeding the 
> number of
> patches in 4.7.0 - 4.7.0.6.  Perhaps I wasn't very thorough in 4.7.0.x, 
> although
> nobody really complained.)  Especially more trivial stuff like comments,
> reformatting and even wiki syncs to the manual -- although the intent is to
> make later patching easier, many times these patches cause conflicts 
> themselves.
> Even a patch that just removes warnings isn't really *that* important in my
> opinion.  I don't mind applying these, even though I don't think they are that
> valuable; perhaps others disagree.  

I think it makes sense to be very conservative regarding the stability
branch.


cheers,
felix




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]