X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
From: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
Message-Id: <200303181056.LAA03766@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject: Re: DJGPP 2.04 release? [Was: Re: nmalloc revisited]
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:56:32 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To: <3E76F02F.92F4A8DC@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> from "Richard Dawe" at Mar 18, 2003 10:08:47 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Hello.

Richard said:
> Push into 2.05:
> 
> * DXE
> * C99 compliance - restrict, math, complex numbers, etc.
> * New POSIX compliance
> * nmalloc (if we do this, Charles says: "someone needs to fix the current libc
> free() to early out if there are lots of items in the free list")
> 
> I'm starting to think that it's better to get 2.04 soon than put yet more
> features in it. The bug fixes and features in it justify a release soon IMHO.

I agree. We won't get a new release out within four years if we
continue like this. Just draw the line somewhere, like Richard's
suggestion, and let the missing functionality wait for the next
release.

May I also suggest that we refrain from saying that this and that will
be in 2.05, because 2.05, 2.06, etc. can very well be a bugfix
release. I'm in strong favour for really increasing the DJGPP version
for every release to avoid confusions like "do you have the latest
libc? Yes, it's 2.03. No, which date does it have? Uhmm, 1998."


Right,

						MartinS