[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Plan for 2.0
Re: Plan for 2.0
Sun, 4 Jan 2009 13:35:22 -0200
It might be a small thing [and of course not a priority at all], but I'd love
a small evolution of the manual index structure in order to separate scheme
procedures from others, scheme variables from others...:
* Concept Index
* Scheme Prodedure Index * C Procedure Index
* Scheme Variable Index * C Variable Index
* Scheme Type Index * C Type Index
* R5RS Index
Being a scheme 'only' programmer, I'd love not to have to scroll through
gh_* and scm_* ... when I am looking for something in an index.
Le Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:38:13 +0000,
"Neil Jerram" <address@hidden> a écrit :
> We're clearly moving towards a 2.0 release. Here is my attempt to
> pull that together a bit and flesh out what needs to be done.
> What will go into 2.0:
> 1. The git "master" branch. In principle, everything here, but we
> need to review and check for
> - anything that should be excluded
> - any applicable fixes that were made in 1.8.x and didn't get copied
> to master.
> I've started doing this review and will hopefully complete soon. If
> there is anything that shouldn't be in 2.0, I'll move it into a new
> branch. If there are missing fixes from 1.8.x, I'll cherry pick them
> into master.
> 2. The "vm" branch. Once the review of "master" is done, we'll merge
> "vm" into "master".
> 3. The "ossau-gds-dev" branch. This contains some minor improvements
> to the Emacs interface. After the review of "master" is done, we'll
> merge "ossau-gds-dev" into "master".
> 4. Any other changes (including bug fixes) that we think are important
> to get done before 2.0. I propose to review the bugs in Savannah, and
> also recent email discussions, to identify these.
> Is there anything else? In particular, am I right in thinking that
> the BDW-GC work is not ready yet?
> One specific query... Although I advocated removing GH before, I
> don't feel 100% confident that that's the right thing for 2.0. I'm
> wondering now if we should instead move the GH code into a separate
> library, "libgh", but continue to provide this as part of the Guile
> distribution. Moving the code out of libguile will still achieve the
> important objectives of (1) reducing the size of the libguile code
> that developers need to look at and work with, and (2) ensuring that
> GH is implementable on top of the advertised SCM API; but keeping
> libgh in the distribution will be a significant help for users who are
> still using GH (who will just need to add -lgh to their link line).
> I still think we should remove all GH-related documentation, as we
> don't want to do anything to encourage further GH usage. The GH code
> itself is sufficient IMO for showing how someone can migrate their
> code from GH to SCM.
> That's all for now. Any concerns or comments?