From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id KAA20815; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:34:21 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA20836 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:34:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mel-rto2.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.254]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g6U8YHb29040; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:34:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mel-rta9.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.69) by mel-rto2.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D1838B60120D3A3; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:34:17 +0200 Received: from iliana (80.9.197.21) by mel-rta9.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D2A791A009F40F3; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:34:17 +0200 Received: from luther by iliana with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZSW2-0000Gs-00; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:38:02 +0200 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:37:51 +0200 To: Xavier Leroy Cc: John Prevost , Caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Serious typechecking error involving new polymorphism (crash) Message-ID: <20020730083751.GA1041@iliana> References: <20020729144527.A30919@pauillac.inria.fr> <000f01c2377c$36263060$2097fea9@janxp> <86vg6xlktk.fsf_-_@laurelin.dementia.org> <20020730095833.B6564@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020730095833.B6564@pauillac.inria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Sven LUTHER Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:58:33AM +0200, Xavier Leroy wrote: > > I've discovered a fairly serious typechecking bug in 3.05. I'm > > reporting it on the webpage, but also want to mention it here so that > > people are aware. > > Yes, this is a serious bug with polymorphic methods and fields. > Expect a 3.06 release as soon as it is fixed. In the meantime, you're > welcome to experiment with polymorphic methods and fields, but don't > bet the farm on them... Xavier, don't you think it would be a good time for going with a dual cvs branch scheme or something like that, where you have a released branch (3.05, and bugfix releases : 3.05.1, 3.05.2, etc) and a development branch (which will become 3.06). I suppose it is easy now to do a 3.06 bufix release, but what will happen when you encouter such a serious bug which needs fixing, when you are in the middle of developpment of the next version, and the cvs tree is not really in a releasable state ? In this case, will you revert all your changes and reapply after having released the bugfix version, hurry the developpment so you can ship the new version fixing the bug, or just let the bug stay until the next version is released ? None of these solutions appear satisfactory. Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners