Re: [Chicken-hackers] new release policy

[Ivan Raikov]

   "Stable" are those versions that work with my software :-) You do
make valid points in your email to Peter, and if you don't feel like
declaring official stable releases and bothering with binary packages,
that's fine with me. But like you say, it is more convenient for users
to install binary packages, especially if the packaging system handles
all the dependencies, like apt-get does. So what I have done is
package up Chicken and a number of eggs, and offer users a stable and
slow-changing Chicken environment. And I plan on making binary and
tarball releases every 4-6 months, using versions of Chicken that I
have tested with my software for a period of time and that I deem to
be sufficiently bug-free. Such an arrangement is good enough for me,
and you don't have to decide what is stable and what is not.

       -Ivan


"felix winkelmann" <address@hidden> writes:

>
> Here I must ask: what is "stable", in the context of chicken?
>
> Regarding binary packages: I never liked them particularly, and it appears
> to me sort of natural to install chicken from sources, as it's main job is to
> generate and compile sources. But binary releases are of course more
> convenient for a user and integrate better with all those (IMHO not very
> useful) file-system hierarchy schemes.
>
> Thank you for offering help with this. You are free to tag versions in the
> svn repo and put up links (for example in the wiki) pointing to particular
> tarballs, of course. But I'd be more happy if you would reconsider this,
> with rerspect to the reasons for the change, which I listed in my
> reply to Peter.
>
> And please don't ask me which version is stable - I wouldn't know. :-)