Jean Abou Samra <j...@abou-samra.fr> writes: > What I don't really understand is why you want to add compatibility > with Guile 3.0.x for small x. Upstream completely breaks the normal > expectation from what you would find in a point release, by putting > features and even severely backwards incompatible changes (like > cross-module inlining in 3.0.8 *cough*), so I think this is definitely > going to be more work to keep supporting (in particular: testing) than > with dependencies that don't have this peculiarity. I'd rather define > a minimum version in the 3.0.x series that we want to support.
I have not checked recently, but last time I looked, Guile's versioning system more or less worked so that the development branch (and the corresponding versions) was Andy Wingo's playground. It was not concerned with APIs in any manner. Any API development and corresponding changes consequently had to be done in the stable branch and eventually forwardported into the development branch. If that is still how things are done, the kind of feature/API stability we can depend on from distributions based on how much they can depend on being able to rely on version numbers for stability choices is limited. We use Guile as infrastructure, not as a Scheme hacking playground. But while Guile is historically sold as infrastructure, its community setup does not accommodate it. And for resolving that mess, we as the likely most competent party with an interest in that mess will be tasked with the consequences, for better or worse. -- David Kastrup
