I've backported and/or applied these to my tree, with the exception of these so
far:
# c2ea63b (uint64 fix) depends on 09bfacd1 (Windows 64 bit patch)
c2ea63b340995b1882d9ed400db0019c1686aa11
# 67ca64e (clang warnings) depends on 09bf6acd1 (Windows 64 bit patch)
67ca64e751451880c89af7c7aa0a233ded34ed09
# 709a4ea depends on 335a0d2e23 (flymake/elisp); also files are not in
manifest
709a4ea4e2fe3008c890d80a5b102bc62e9ba306
# symbol GC, instructed to skip
# f97a4e630c1390372c168327ee97838f633d0eac
The ones that depend on the Win 64 bit patch could be rewritten to apply
without it,
but it's a little hairy. Can someone vouch for the patch? Otherwise I will
probably defer those changes.
The patch depending on flymake/elisp could have the latter added with no
problem,
but those files aren't ever added to the manifest, so this change would have no
effect in a distribution tarball. [I consider this change to be user-invisible
as far as stability goes anyway, as it has no functional effect and can be
retrieved from git if someone wants it.] If people still want it in stability,
we need to patch the manifest in master.
The symbol GC patch is skipped as per C-Keen. In fact given the troubles with
symbol GC, I am fine with declaring symbol GC as WONTFIX in 4.8.0.x and
disabling the stupid test, at least until it's absolutely rock solid.
Kon's hash patches are skipped for this release but could be reexamined later
if the lack of them is causing a problem.
I want to note that although I did apply nearly everything since
Peter was kind enough to find appropriate patches, I think it is not
really necessary to put so many patches into stability, just because it
is a lot of work for everybody. (We have already hit 50, exceeding the number
of
patches in 4.7.0 - 4.7.0.6. Perhaps I wasn't very thorough in 4.7.0.x, although
nobody really complained.) Especially more trivial stuff like comments,
reformatting and even wiki syncs to the manual -- although the intent is to
make later patching easier, many times these patches cause conflicts themselves.
Even a patch that just removes warnings isn't really *that* important in my
opinion. I don't mind applying these, even though I don't think they are that
valuable; perhaps others disagree.
Finally, I was kind of hesitant to apply the POSIX poll() fix, since it's an
intrusive change and since we already have a defense against it (ulimit),
and there's not really a test suite for it I think, and it is
platform-dependent.
But in the end I applied it.
Jim
On Jan 6, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Peter Bex wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It'd be nice if we can make a stability release. I propose to merge the
> attached list of changesets. IMO it's reasonably conservative, I avoided
> adding large non-bugfix changes.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
> --
> http://sjamaan.ath.cx
> ___
> Chicken-hackers mailing list
> Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
___
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
