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 EAA02206; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 04:18:30 +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 EAA02833 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 04:18:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from favie.faith.gr.jp (favie.faith.gr.jp [61.127.175.250]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9M2IRD23990 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 04:18:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (dhcp7.faith.gr.jp [192.168.1.17]) by favie.faith.gr.jp (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA31600; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:17:10 +0900 To: alex@baretta.com Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Possible bug in module and class? In-Reply-To: <3DB3F02B.6070401@baretta.com> References: <200210182016.g9IKGjec024716@saul.cis.upenn.edu> <20021021152606F.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <3DB3F02B.6070401@baretta.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20021022111642R.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:16:42 +0900 From: Jacques Garrigue X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk From: Alessandro Baretta > I'm using O'Caml in an industrial project. Of course, I'd > like to make sure that I give my customers the most stable > environment possible. As more and more bugs are found and > fixed in the CVS version, the temptation to upgrade from the > official distribution becomes stronger. But is the CVS > version usually more or less buggy than the official distro? There is no official guideline that I know, but considering other problems like binary compatibility, switching to a CVS version can always create trouble. Personally I would not suggest doing that for an industrial project, except maybe if the deadline is more than 9 month ahead (i.e. you are reasonnably sure that a new release will be available by that time). On the upside, you can profit immediately from bug fixes, and avoid preemptively bugs that would break your code in an upcoming release. From this point of view, if you're a very active user, maybe having the CVS version around for testing can be useful. Concerning whether there are more or less bugs in the CVS versions, like for all projects I would say this goes in cycles. Typically, just after a release people do not immediately introduce new features, and many bug reports come in, so that for a while the number of bugs is actually going down. Then you may get a big change and it suddenly goes up, then down again thanks to benevolent CVS testers. Since there is no strict rule about when to commit (except code freezes just before releases), it is very hard to tell what is the current situation. My personnal feeling that the CVS version of a few days ago is more stable than 3.06, but then I don't test all parts of the compiler. Last thing, for people who might be tempted to use the CVS version: please do not release code requiring the CVS version to run. Forcing it on other people may break their own programs. But this is just classical advice I believe. Cheers, Jacques Garrigue ------------------- 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