[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: release methodology
- From: John Belmonte <jvb@...>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:33:11 +0900
I just want state my belief that this and other suggestions to make Lua more
inline with one groups conventions are valid, but should not be dwelled upon.
The point isn't to follow some other group's convention, but to solve a
problem. My conclusion that there is a problem may be invalid, which is
certainly open to discussion.
Exactly because Lua is small and simple, and because it's useful in
embedded systems, it frequently gets modified to suit the application.
That's useful and should be encouraged. Note that not only are official
releases tinkered with, but also work releases, and things can quickly
get confusing. What release of Lua is this patch for? How likely is a
patch that was for 4.1work to apply cleanly to 5.0work? Users of Lua
will have trouble organizing their modifications if there is confusion
at the source. (I pointed out an example of the confusion propagating
to a downstream package in my last message.)
Back to release methodology in general, another issue to consider is
that some Lua developments (full lexical scoping, weak tables) are
clearly useful and have been working well in the development releases
for some time, while others (global keyword, generators library
reorganization) are taking a while to get a handle on. It would be nice
if things could occasionally propagate from development to production
without waiting until all the stars are correctly aligned. That's more
distraction for Lua's small team however, so I can understand why they
may not want to do that.
OpenPGP encrypted mail welcome.