Luke Gorrie luke@synap.se writes:
Helmut Eller e9626484@stud3.tuwien.ac.at writes:
Luke Gorrie luke@synap.se writes:
Pointing out holes in the documentation would be useful.
What do others think about making a 1.1? Helmut? Marco?
What was the release date again? End of March?
I can't do very much this month but I will undertake to update the manual as you described. Great if someone can contribute a paragraph about the unicode stuff though (any sharp edges?).
I'll be away after next week (my new life as an installation technician :-)) so I won't make any more noise about a release since I won't be around to work on one. Peter can try his luck at lobbying you guys :-)
So I guess the first question is, are there things about the current CVS head that *must* be fixed before folks are willing to make it an official release. I'd suggest that maybe we look at that in terms of, are there things about CVS head that are broken compared to the 1.0 release such that someone upgrading from 1.0 to 1.1 would be sorry they did? If there aren't, then it seems like at least a 1.0.1 is in order, particularly since 1.0, if I understand correctly, doesn't work with any version of SBCL since Unicode was introduced. (Is that right?)
Is there anything that's been done since 1.0 that has destabilized things in any significant way? (My guess would be no since such a large percentage of SLIME users use CVS and because I seem to have seen a lot of questions to slime-devel answered with, "well, you should really upgrade to CVS head.)
Then, if there are major new features that can be wrapped up (documented, made to work in some reasonable way on all or most Lisps, etc.) maybe it's better to think about a 1.1.
Comments?
-Peter