From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23927 invoked from network); 6 Jun 1999 17:14:11 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 6 Jun 1999 17:14:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 26229 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 1999 17:13:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 2362 Received: (qmail 26222 invoked from network); 6 Jun 1999 17:13:58 -0000 Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 18:13:57 +0100 From: Adam Spiers To: zsh-users@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: Call for opinions on a couple of prospective zsh patches Message-ID: <19990606181357.A25812@thelonious.new.ox.ac.uk> Reply-To: Adam Spiers Mail-Followup-To: zsh-users@sunsite.auc.dk References: <990606065150.ZM9165@candle.brasslantern.com> <5lr9np8e8e.fsf@tequila.cs.yale.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i In-Reply-To: <5lr9np8e8e.fsf@tequila.cs.yale.edu>; from Stefan Monnier on Sun, Jun 06, 1999 at 12:50:57PM -0400 Stefan Monnier (monnier+lists/zsh/users/news/@tequila.cs.yale.edu) wrote: > I think adding anything to 3.0 is a mistake. We should instead hurry to > get 3.2 out the door. 3.1.x has too many neat features that most people don't > get to use since RedHat and friends only come with 3.0.5. > > Adding any of the three to 3.1 makes sense, but to 3.0 ? > I really wish the next 3.1.x were called 3.2.0. I'm no zsh developer really so my opinion shouldn't count for much, but I'm with Stefan here. 3.0.x is really quite old now and I know that there is some really nice stuff in 3.1.x which I would rather see released in stable form at the expense of maintaining 3.0.x. Then again, it may be that there's still a while to go before 3.1.x approaches stability? In which case, forget everything I said :-)