Re: Change of coordinator

Re: Change of coordinator

[Oliver Kiddle]

Peter Stephenson wrote:
> 
> more, so I've been nominated to take over for development of zsh 3.1.  This
> should be a fairly seamless transition, since I've been producing
> unofficial intermediate versions for a few months now; these will now

I hope that the frequency of your releases will continue - I've found it
extremely useful to be able to have a very up-to-date version of zsh
without having to constantly apply patches myself. If making an official
release is more time consuming for whatever reason I think continuing to
have unofficial intermediate versions would be a good idea.

> eventually become the official version 3.1.6.  I hope this will appear over

Wouldn't it possibly make more sense to call the next official
development release version 3.9.0, working towards a stable version 4.0.
The 20 pws releases are quite a substantial advance from 3.1.5 and it
would make sense for this to be clearer in the version numbering. Also,
I would have thought that the 3.1 advances over 3.0 are approaching
being sufficient for the major version number change?

I wasn't on the mailing lists before version 3 so don't really know how
these things are normally decided or how much of a change to zsh
previously warranted a major version number change so sorry if this is a
stupid suggestion.

Thanks

Oliver Kiddle

Re: Change of coordinator

[Peter Stephenson]

Oliver Kiddle wrote:
> Wouldn't it possibly make more sense to call the next official
> development release version 3.9.0, working towards a stable version 4.0.
> The 20 pws releases are quite a substantial advance from 3.1.5 and it
> would make sense for this to be clearer in the version numbering. Also,
> I would have thought that the 3.1 advances over 3.0 are approaching
> being sufficient for the major version number change?

I haven't really decided, because I don't really know what the criteria for
3.1 still being a beta version was.  If 3.1.6 is stable we should certainly
think about a production release 3.2 or even 4.0.  I don't think I want to
change the sequence before that, however.  The key seems to me to be
testing the next version as widely as possible.  For example, dynamical
loading, which is a key feature, is reported not to work on SunOS 5.7, and
it's quite possible --enable-lfs is doing something to --enable-zsh-mem,
and so on.  There weren't actually so many complaints about 3.1.5.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@ibmth.df.unipi.it>       Tel: +39 050 844536
WWW:  http://www.ifh.de/~pws/
Dipartimento di Fisica, Via Buonarroti 2, 56127 Pisa, Italy

Dynamic loading on Solaris 2.7

[Danek Duvall]

On Tue, Jun 08, 1999 at 04:45:01PM +0200, Peter Stephenson wrote:

> For example, dynamical loading, which is a key feature, is reported not
> to work on SunOS 5.7

Just as another data point, t works just fine for me.  I'm using Sun's C
compiler and no special options to configure save --enable-dynamic.

Danek

Re: Dynamic loading on Solaris 2.7

[Peter Stephenson]

Danek Duvall wrote:
> Just as another data point, t works just fine for me.  I'm using Sun's C
> compiler and no special options to configure save --enable-dynamic.

Thanks, this sort of thing is useful.  Etc/MACHINES is compiled largely by
rumour, so any changes, i.e. configurations which don't work or ones which
do when the file said otherwise, are very helpful.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@ibmth.df.unipi.it>       Tel: +39 050 844536
WWW:  http://www.ifh.de/~pws/
Dipartimento di Fisica, Via Buonarroti 2, 56127 Pisa, Italy