Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > of course these things follow. i'm not questioning the consequence of > the approach, but the wisdom of using that approach in the first place, > which seems backwards and make-work-ful to me.
Well I wasn't implying it's how you'd want to do everything, or even most things, just mentioning in passing that there were *some* things that I'd done that way. Might have been better if I hadn't said anything. Furthermore, as I've said several times before, I consider 1.6 a special case -- it has taken too long to get out the door, and as such there's been more divergence between the 1.6 branch and HEAD than anyone would like. While I'm trying to make sure we set things up so that's less likely to happen again, it *has* happened. As a result, changes for one side may not apply as easily as we'd like to the other side. This means that when I need to make changes that I *know* have to go into 1.6, but probably aren't appropriate (in the same form) for HEAD, I may in fact just write them for 1.6 and then see if they can/should be trivially ported to HEAD. If not, then I make a note of the pending to-do item for 1.8. In some cases, coming up with a fix for HEAD as well right now would likely be a waste of time. -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org Previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C 64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD _______________________________________________ Bug-guile mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile