I do think it is time for an overhaul, and creating a new major version branch is the right way to go about it.
Obviously it would take some time to port everything, but it seems that the changes will be simpler than during the hygienic macros transition.
On Aug 19, 2014 12:09 AM, "Peter Bex" <
address@hidden> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 04:53:22PM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
> - I don't know how this is handled with henrietta - do we need a
> separate CGI script running for this? It seems so, so the
> core-branch will need to have different download URLs in
> setup.defaults.
Perhaps, I'm not sure about that. The release-info files don't have
a way to indicate CHICKEN version either. This needs some extra
attention, so that repositories can support multiple CHICKEN versions.
> All this is mainly to safe time - keeping up backward-compatibility
> hacks (wrapper-eggs, hacks in setup.defaults, etc.) just needs more
> work and time and we haven't much of that, considering that we are
> just a handful of part-time maintainers.
Yeah, we're pretty thinly spread right now.
I think calling this CHICKEN 5 may be a good idea. I don't know for
sure though: adding backwards compatibility may actually be easier
in this situation. Ripping out the SRFIs from core should be pretty
simple, but it does require updating all the eggs. And of course
there's shitloads of eggs that are unmaintained, which will break
and never get fixed. So all in all, starting over might be easiest.
I'd love to hear from some of the people using CHICKEN in their business
or for other Serious Projects (Kristian? Ivan? Andy?) how painful this
would be for them.
Cheers,
Peter
--
http://www.more-magic.net
_______________________________________________
Chicken-hackers mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers