[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GH. Again.

From: Marius Vollmer
Subject: Re: GH. Again.
Date: 18 Jun 2001 14:25:56 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.0.102

Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

> >>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:
>     Marius> Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:
>     >> >>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:
>     >> 
>     >> >> - remove anything that's been added to GH since 1.4, and
>     >> don't >> add anything else to it.
>     >> 
>     Marius> Why should we remove stuff?
>     >>  For users who only follow the official Guile releases, it
>     >> would look strange simultaneously to announce that GH is
>     >> deprecated, and to announce that the GH interface has been
>     >> extended!
>     Marius> Couldn't we just be silent (or low voiced) about the
>     Marius> changes to GH?  It doesn't feel right to me to turn back
>     Marius> the clock for GH, causing work for us and the people who
>     Marius> are using the removed features.
> We could, but I think my detailed reasons against doing so still
> stand.  (Remember that, from the point of view of people that follow
> only releases, the clock is not being turned back.)

Hmm, there might be a misunderstanding here: whether or not to make
the 1.6.0 GH interface compatible with 1.4; opposed to whether or not
making 1.6.0 GH identical to 1.4.  I assumed you mean the latter while
you probably only meant the former, right?

I do think we should make 1.6.0 GH compatible to 1.4, but I am wary
about making it identical.

> However, it's probably not a big deal either way - has a lot been
> added to GH since 1.4?

I don't think so.  Mere additions are OK, I'd say, and the rest should
be mostly bug fixes, which are also OK.  Genuine changes that lead to
incompatabilities should be rare.

reply via email to

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