Re: "Known bugs" on cc65.org (was: [cc65] -Cl error?)

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 01:05:40PM +0100, Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
> The problem with the current approach on SVN, as I see it, is as
> follows: The 2.13.0 branch not only contains bugfixes, but also other
> changes to 2.13.0. Until now, a release + the fixes was quite stable.
> Now, chances are that a 2.13.0 + svn might become much more unstable
> because other changes are getting into it, but not as much tested as an
> official release.

No. The policy is to include only bugfixes, changes to the docs or sample
programs, or here and then a really small change that isn't supposed to break
anything. This is the same policy that was used for the CVS repository. The
only change is that it is now easier to access the subversion repository,
which is a good thing in my eyes.

Just look at the log for the 2.13 branch. It contains 8 changes since release
of 2.13.0. Six of the changes fix five problems. Three of these fixes were not
discussed here, and partially known before the release of 2.13.0. One change
is an update to the docs. And the last change is a small change of a apple
header file by Oliver, which was discussed here.

But you're of course right: If you use anything not officially released,
you're on your own. That is true either when using branch 2.13 or when using
2.13 plus some fixes. My suggestion would be to stay with 2.13.0. If you don't
do that, I would at least ask for clearly marking the packages and binaries as
unsupported.

Regards


        Uz


-- 
Ullrich von Bassewitz                                  uz@musoftware.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.