Re: [Chicken-hackers] What's left for the next release?

[Felix]

From: Peter Bex <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] What's left for the next release?
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:36:41 +0200

> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:20:36AM +0200, Christian Kellermann wrote:
>> Dear Chicken hackers,
>> dear Felix,
>> dear Ivan,
>> 
>> since I will be able to hack more on chicken again on the next
>> weekends I would like to focus my energy on clearing the way for a new
>> release.  I tend to trip over a new unnoticed can of worms, so I would
>> like to ask you for:
>> 
>> * Bugs that you think should be fixed for 4.8.0
>> * Patches that need review for 4.8.0

> 
> The following threads are still unresolved:
> 
> Apr 11 Sven Hartrumpf  (1.1K) [Chicken-hackers] -O5 vs. -optimize-level 5

This should be removed, as suggested by Sven.

> Apr 10 Timo Myyrä      (1.7K) [Chicken-hackers] Patch to use better PRNG on 
> BSD's

A RNG written in Scheme appears to me the cleanest and most portable
solution. I don't think this is required for 4.8.0.

> Apr 07 To chicken-hack (7.5K) [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Adding checks to some 
> procedures that accept integers only

Looks ok, even though it hurts me to see all those special case checks.
It just demonstrates the brokenness of the IEEE FP model, or more specifically,
the contortions necessary to cover every possible case.

> Mar 08 Alaric Snell-Py (2.9K) [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Allow assert to 
> accept an arbitrary expression as the message

It should add the line-number when a literal string is passed and just use
the argument in any other case. 

> 
>> * Documentation that needs a closer look (manual merges with the wiki?)

Yes, the manuals need to be merged.

>> * Needed features or tests...

None needed with the exception of those added in recent patches.

>> 
>> I have seen there are some bugs on trac with the milestone set to
>> 4.8.0. Do you consider these essential or is that outdated?

My suggestions:

#773: postpone
#738: no idea, should probably be investigated
#765: clueless about what to do
#781: probably a problem with the C compiler, I would postpone
#806, #816: postpone

> 
> Personally I think #808 should definitely be fixed, unless we plan to
> do the next release in a shorter timespan than a year.

Yup, agreed.

> #723 sounds serious as well, and I think #800 can be fixed too; we've
> already pinpointed where it fails.  #816 isn't very critical but it
> sounds like it shouldn't be too hard to fix.

#723: looks weird, but looking into that will need time
#800: strange, should probably be fixed
#803: needs to be fixed


cheers,
felix