Hello, zsh is now quite old and its maintainship has been dropped. I'm the current maintainer of zsh-devel and I think it does not deserve its -devel nature. Should we delete zsh and rename zsh-devel? Regards, -- Anthony Ramine, the infamous MacPorts Trac slave. nox@macports.org
N_Ox wrote:
zsh is now quite old and its maintainship has been dropped. I'm the current maintainer of zsh-devel and I think it does not deserve its -devel nature. Should we delete zsh and rename zsh-devel?
Upstream still lists 4.2.6 (2005-12-05) as the "stable" series and 4.3.4 (2007-04-19) as the "development" series, so it seems a good idea to keep the current naming ? Feel free to maintain the zsh port as well, though... :-) --anders
Le 2 sept. 07 à 22:40, Anders F Björklund a écrit :
N_Ox wrote:
zsh is now quite old and its maintainship has been dropped. I'm the current maintainer of zsh-devel and I think it does not deserve its -devel nature. Should we delete zsh and rename zsh-devel?
Upstream still lists 4.2.6 (2005-12-05) as the "stable" series and 4.3.4 (2007-04-19) as the "development" series, so it seems a good idea to keep the current naming ?
Feel free to maintain the zsh port as well, though... :-)
--anders
Oh, you're right, I didn't notice that. I'll take over it soon so. -- Anthony Ramine, the infamous MacPorts Trac slave. nox@macports.org
On 2007-09-02 22:40:01 +0200, Anders F Björklund wrote:
N_Ox wrote:
zsh is now quite old and its maintainship has been dropped. I'm the current maintainer of zsh-devel and I think it does not deserve its -devel nature. Should we delete zsh and rename zsh-devel?
Upstream still lists 4.2.6 (2005-12-05) as the "stable" series and 4.3.4 (2007-04-19) as the "development" series, so it seems a good idea to keep the current naming ?
BTW, I don't really like the names "stable" and "development" since they don't always mean what they really mean. In particular, one may think that the development version is more buggy than the stable version. In the case of zsh, this is currently the opposite. Also "development" is misleading when at some point, a developement version becomes a stable version. For instance, what if the successor of 4.3.4 becomes the stable version 4.4.0, so that 4.3.4 is out-of-date and 4.5.0 isn't out yet? The user of zsh-devel should expect an upgrade to 4.4.0 instead of staying with the out-of-date 4.3.4. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
On Sep 3, 2007, at 08:47, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2007-09-02 22:40:01 +0200, Anders F Björklund wrote:
N_Ox wrote:
zsh is now quite old and its maintainship has been dropped. I'm the current maintainer of zsh-devel and I think it does not deserve its -devel nature. Should we delete zsh and rename zsh-devel?
Upstream still lists 4.2.6 (2005-12-05) as the "stable" series and 4.3.4 (2007-04-19) as the "development" series, so it seems a good idea to keep the current naming ?
BTW, I don't really like the names "stable" and "development" since they don't always mean what they really mean. In particular, one may think that the development version is more buggy than the stable version. In the case of zsh, this is currently the opposite.
Also "development" is misleading when at some point, a developement version becomes a stable version. For instance, what if the successor of 4.3.4 becomes the stable version 4.4.0, so that 4.3.4 is out-of- date and 4.5.0 isn't out yet? The user of zsh-devel should expect an upgrade to 4.4.0 instead of staying with the out-of-date 4.3.4.
What portname suffix would you propose instead of "-devel"? "-devel" seems ok to me -- it indicates that this will install the version currently being developed by the developers, as opposed to the version that is stable and has already been developed. We could use "-beta" but that would be inaccurate for many software projects where that's not the term they use to describe their development software.
On 2007-09-03 12:22:17 -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
What portname suffix would you propose instead of "-devel"? "-devel" seems ok to me -- it indicates that this will install the version currently being developed by the developers, as opposed to the version that is stable and has already been developed.
But the version currently being developed can be the *same* as the stable version (e.g. after a feature freeze). -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
participants (4)
-
Anders F Björklund
-
N_Ox
-
Ryan Schmidt
-
Vincent Lefevre