Re: guile 2.0.0 out

[Graham Percival]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 07:08:29PM -0800, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Graham Percival
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > I don't see a need to support both guile 1.8.x and guile 2.0.x at
> > the same time -- as far as I'm concerned, we can drop any
> > guile-1.x-isms as soon as 2.15 begins.
> 
> Uh, I'm not sure what you mean here.

I mean that my personal opinion, at the moment, subject to
rational arguments and/or additional information, is that we do
not need to support guile 1.8.

>  I have a patch queue with
> (potential) fixes for LilyPond so that we can support both Guile 1.8
> and 2.0.

Great!  Comment 5 of
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1247
is no longer valid?

> I don't think it's wise to drop support for Guile 1.8, as long as the
> Guile developers continue to fix backward-compatibility issues with
> the 2.0 series, just like they have in the 1.9 series.

Ok.  Well, if the two can co-exist, then we might as well keep
both; no point even considering whether we "need" guile 1.8 or
not.


I wasn't trying to force us to drop guile 1.8; I was just making
sure that we agreed that guile 2.0 wasn't going into 2.14, and
fishing for comments like "we can support both Guile 1.8 and 2.0."
:)

Cheers,
- Graham