Re: 1.3.6?

["Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>]

Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:

> "Greg J. Badros" <gjb@cs.washington.edu> writes:
> 
> > I'd minimally like to do my rename to SCM_SCM and SCM_WORD before that
> > happens.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > I'd rather get the rest of the docstrings in before forking as
> > maintaining those changes between branches would be a chore, but I'd
> > need more help from others to get all the docstrings done within the
> > next week or so.
> 
> If you say so, but there's probably even more work we'd like to do
> regarding docstrings before we're satisfied, right?

That's true.

> (I'm thinking about things like improving validate macros, splitting
> up validate.h, improving the interactive tools for accessing docs
> ((ice-9 session) should have some easy-to-use command for accessing
> documentation), etc.)
> 
> If we were making releases every second month or so, we wouldn't be
> this cautious about things which aren't quite complete...

My concern is for changing strategy;  when 1.3.6 is out, I'll imagine
everyone will upgrade to it.  I feel that there is a lot more testing
that needs to be done before I'd be confident saying it's at least as
stable as 1.3.4.  (In particular, I don't use cvs guile with Scwm,
yet, and the "regression" test is *far* from complete).

I'd like to release Cassowary-0.60 and Scwm-0.99.6.2 (over the weekend,
I hope), and then get a week to use Scwm w/ cvs guile and see what
problems come up (and hopefully fix them) before releasing 1.3.6.

Greg