Daniel,

> Well, making the VMs "closure compatible" soon is a good thing. 
> 
> Changing gamma versions isn't. 

Well, it's your choice. I was just pointing out that the changes are
"harmless" in terms of actually affecting anything and therefore could be
considered for inclusion.

Cheers,
  - Andreas

> 
> I withdraw from this discussion - I don't have anything more to add. 
> 
> Doug's call.
> 
> Hmm, just thought about an alternative that might be better - 
> add it to
> 3.6, and use 3.6 to make the 3.5 VMs. If that's the only 
> difference (and
> 3.5 didn't contain a lot), it should be compatible anyway. But, again,
> whatever you guys decide.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > It'll be 3.6a (3.5 is now gamma),
> > 
> > So what. We're effectively talking about five methods with 
> no implication
> > whatsoever on any part of the VM or the image. Even if they 
> were entirely
> > broken they'd affect nothing. If you want to move towards 
> that direction
> > it's definitely worthwhile considering.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> >   - Andreas
>