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
> >