On 1/24/19, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Development happens on Guile2, none on Guile1.
That’s what I’m worried about: if we *were* to include guile1 as a git submodule (effectively forking it, although I don’t imagine many Lily devs are gonna be fiddling with its codebase), what are the sustainability prospects in the long run? (e.g. when new major GCC / glibc / whatever versions come around, breaking compatibility at some point) *Or* can we safely regard Guile v1 as "stable" and reliable on a long-term perspective (much like you no longer need to worry about new version of TeX coming out, or a very narrow number of other programs deemed "frozen in perfection")? If so, sticking with v1 would mean better performance, greater stability *and* acceptable sustainability (and besides as you noted, even Guile v2 depends on very few devs, thus keeping the getting-hit-by-a-bus factor fairly high anyway). And including Guile v1 as a submodule could make life easier for users whose distros no longer offer a guile1(-devel) package, couldn’t it? On an unrelated subject, am I the only one puzzled by the fact that, although the global situation with Guile 2.0 was a mess, still they went ahead and released new major versions, a.k.a. 2.2 and 2.4? Or is it a year-based release cycle where the numbers don’t mean anything? Very unusual within GNU programs. Cheers, V. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
