[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
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Updating stability..., Felix, 2013/01/07
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Updating stability..., Jim Ursetto, 2013/01/09