On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 05:18:05AM +0300, Juho Snellman wrote:
> william.newman@... (William Harold Newman) writes:
> > Schemes are being made to replace me but probably next week-ish, not
> > tomorrow-ish. Thus I intend to do one last routine release,
> > sbcl-1.0.17, in about five days.
> > So today is the 20th :-|, albeit delayed by some fraction of the delay
> > in the release of sbcl-1.0.16. And as usual, please test vigorously
> > and patch conservatively until release.
> Would it be better to skip the release completely this month? There
> weren't very many changes due to the long freeze, and apparently at
> least two regressions (22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199).
Yes, you're very likely right. Like you, I have less than the usual
enthusiasm for the state of the snapshot that exists at the moment. I
think a stable timeboxing policy has worked well, so I was going to
release anyway. And once you made me think about it, any policy
stability at this moment would be only superficial: after switching
organizational forms and figuring out what sbcl-1.1 release should be,
then things can settle down again, to whatever.
So unless there's some unreasonably-long stall in the replace-me
process, I'll just leave things alone for my successors to sort out.
William Harold Newman <william.newman@...>
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C
It might look like I'm standing motionless, but I'm actively waiting
for our problems to go away. -- Bob the dinosaur