Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Marius> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> This bug has been fixed in unstable CVS, by removing the lines at the > >> end of (ice-9 debug) that unconditionally enable debugging. Is there > >> any reason why we shouldn't fix it in the same way on the stable > >> branch? > > Marius> This change would be too far reaching for a supposedly > Marius> stable program. Debugging wouldn't be turned on when > Marius> people expect it. > > I'm not convinced. How can people be expecting debugging to be turned > on after having explicitly said `(debug-disable 'debug)' in their > .guile file?
Because Guile behaved like that for quite a while. Ok, I thought about my general view of the stable branch situation, and this came from it: We need to be much more rigorous about really keeping the stable branch stable. From now on, only release critical fixes will be allowed. I intend to be firm on this. We are not getting anywhere without restraining us from putting new stuff into the stable branch. I don't want to stop anyone from working on Guile, but I'd like to get 1.6 released fast. This will help all of us. See my posting to guile-devel. _______________________________________________ Bug-guile mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
