Sven Barth wrote:
Am 11.12.2013 10:05, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Bart wrote:
2.7 branch will never be a stable release.
Eventually we'll get a 2.8 release.
I think that needs to be made to sound more deliberate, for Dennis's
benefit. Please could any of the core team jump on me if some detail's
wrong, but:
You are nearly correct excep:
There are some things in trunk which will go into 2.8, others will
remain in trunk when it becomes 2.9, others will be removed or left
optional for experimentation.
2.7.1 will become 2.8 sooner or later (*) and what's in trunk at that
time will also be in 2.8.0 (and normally we don't deliberately remove
things... ^^ ).
* To be more precise: 2.8 will be branched from 2.7.1 and 2.7.1 will
then become 2.9.1.
But you do reserve the right to spring surprises on people who use
odd-numbered releases incautiously.
I've certainly been confused at times. I forget the detail, but IIRC it
was something like an ARM fpu variant which was more robust in 2.5.1
despite 2.6.0 having been released... that example might be inaccurate
but I'm just trying to emphasise as part of the FAQ that there are
pitfalls for somebody who tries to use odd-numbered releases "just
because they're the most recent".
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
