[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Coq & ocaml 3.08



On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:11:35PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> > When will be the release of the new coq ? Any time schedule ?
> 
>  No time schedule has been decided officially, but the next week has
>  been given indicated to me. (There are still a few bugs open in the
>  bug tracking system that deserves a fix.)

Ok, this is rather short time, i guess we can afford to have coq broken
in sid for a week or so, as long as the sarge version is ok. But see
below. Also, it is well possible, if i remember well, that the coq
package doesn't break on native code providing arches when a new ocaml
version is included. Not 100% sure though.

> > I guess they were waiting for the ocaml 3.08 release to make such an
> > announcement ? 
> 
>  No, they were not (I have joined the team and I share the office with
>  the guy that makes the releases --- and that is now on vacation).
>  Indeed I think that work is needed to port it to 3.08.

Err, will the new release be ocaml 3.08 compatible or not, if not, then
we have a problem.

>  The suggestion for Samuel was to start packagint the current 3.08
>  stable release since the new upstream tarball will be almost equal
>  to the old one (but for the release change and the few bug fixes).
>  However, I think that the 3.08 debian package would break this suggestion ;-(

Well. I have not uploaded yet, so ...

> > But again, can you try to get the estimated release schedule, and come
> > back here ? Depending on it i will go forward or not.
> 
>  For sure not before monday 19th and almost for sure before the august
>  holidays. I cannot be more precise now (since a few developers are on
>  vacation for a few days).

This brings us in the next 2 weeks time frame, which is rather
acceptable for the 3.07 -> 3.08 time frame.

I will prepare the upload but not do it before i get an answer from you
about the ocaml 3.08 compatibility of the new coq release.

Friendly,

Sven Luther



Reply to: