[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Forking stables. was Re: language translator help

From: Clinton Ebadi
Subject: Re: Forking stables. was Re: language translator help
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:08:12 -0400
User-agent: KMail/1.4.1

On Friday 14 June 2002 15:32, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
>    From: MJ Ray <address@hidden>
>    Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:44:43 GMT
>    I think that stable series releases should not break *any* programs
>    unless they rely on a clearly buggy behaviour.  Upgrading between
>    stable series may.
> if this is the premise, you can think of each "stable series" as a high
> mountain w/ rickety rope bridges crossing the chasms between them.  in
> that case don't you think it would be a good idea to grow your crops on
> each, rather than asking people to risk life and limb for every meal?
> sure, you may be a god and have ability to transport yourself through
> the air w/ greatest of ease (and consort w/ similar beings who see
> nothing of jumping a thousand leagues for breakfast).  that's not the
> question.
> thi

How hard is it to rewrite code from 1.4 to 1.6? It wasn't too hard with 
glame...I mean, all of gh is still there except for the the lazy modules 
registering stuff (but then you have scm_c_define_module, you just have to 
make sure to scm_c_export everything). This is no reason to fork. Get over 
it, spend a few hours updating your code, and move on with life. Wow, that 
was easy.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
                -- Aldous Huxley
Flag Burner.

reply via email to

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