I understand that they're harmless changes also.  I would tend to just 
include them in 3.6alpha and not mess with 3.5gamma at this stage.  
There's not that much disadvantage to adding them in 3.6alpha... they 
could be added right away (since the 3.6alpha update stream is open), 
and the actual closure (non-VM) code wouldn't be added until later in 
3.6alpha anyway, if it is added.

Although if all of the VM maintainers think it is worth adding in 3.5, 
we could consider that.

- Doug Way


On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 03:48 PM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> Yeah, I see what you mean about it being quite harmless, so I don't 
> feel
> very strongly about it. I do want to make to advance this thing, but I
> don't want to push for something that adds (slight) risk to a release
> that I advocated be short only because it is relatively
> complication-free (ha, theories - see the weakness weaknes thread).
>
> So, I'll accept whatever other people decide, and it's really mostly up
> to Doug and the VM maintainers.
>
> Daniel
>
> Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>> 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
>>>