Re: [Chicken-hackers] What's left for the next release?

[Mario Domenech Goulart]

Hi,

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:36:41 +0200 Peter Bex <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:20:36AM +0200, Christian Kellermann wrote:
> 
>> since I will be able to hack more on chicken again on the next
>> weekends I would like to focus my energy on clearing the way for a new
>> release.  I tend to trip over a new unnoticed can of worms, so I would
>> like to ask you for:
>> 
>> * Bugs that you think should be fixed for 4.8.0
>> * Patches that need review for 4.8.0
>
> The following threads are still unresolved:
>
> Apr 11 Sven Hartrumpf  (1.1K) [Chicken-hackers] -O5 vs. -optimize-level 5
> Apr 10 Timo Myyrä      (1.7K) [Chicken-hackers] Patch to use better PRNG on 
> BSD's
> Apr 07 To chicken-hack (7.5K) [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Adding checks to some 
> procedures that accept integers only
> Mar 16 Felix           (2.5K) [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] check egg names in 
> setup-download
> Mar 08 Alaric Snell-Py (2.9K) [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Allow assert to 
> accept an arbitrary expression as the message
>
>> * Documentation that needs a closer look (manual merges with the wiki?)
>> * Needed features or tests...
>> 
>> I have seen there are some bugs on trac with the milestone set to
>> 4.8.0. Do you consider these essential or is that outdated?
>
> Personally I think #808 should definitely be fixed, unless we plan to
> do the next release in a shorter timespan than a year.
> #723 sounds serious as well, and I think #800 can be fixed too; we've
> already pinpointed where it fails.  #816 isn't very critical but it
> sounds like it shouldn't be too hard to fix.

There's also that plan to run a salmonella instance with -scrutinize in
CSC_OPTIONS, so we can stress the scrutinizer.  I can do that, but I'm
afraid I'll need some time.  This and the next week are going to be
quite busy to me.

Best wishes.
Mario
-- 
http://parenteses.org/mario