>    except that Spur is nothing to do with 4.6, so "Spur" in the title is wrong,

Ah, I figured that would need some explaining.  The word "Spur" on
that page refers to the codename of this release.  The last time we
had a discussion about codenaming this release, we had a smattering of
ideas and not much consensus.  So, I just went with "Spur" for that
moment to get on with the notes until that could be solved.

Then, it hit me, if we DIDN'T come up with a codename for this
software release then how would we meaningfully refer to it besides
the number 4.6?  I believe we would say, "that was the release when we
made the image ready for Spur", which, in further discussion would
naturally contract to "the Spur release" for communication efficiency.

I know that Spur is the name of your VM software, but does that mean
it cannot also be the name of this release?  I think it fits but if
you object I did think of another good one I like...

> and become: is not faster, and ObjectHistory still works.

That was pulled straight from the notes of one of the versions.  I'll
move it to the 5.0 page.

>  We need a separate page for 5.0,

Yes, we are doing two releases now, one thing at a time please.

> which /is/ Spur; it has all the improvements in 4.6, except for ObjectHistory being unsupported,
> but is faster, with much faster become: and improved GC.

Okay, my plan is for the 5.0 page to _just_ be those items, which is
perfect.  And since it is the same image contents I thought both 4.6
and 5.0 could be codenamed "Spur" but, if that rubs you the wrong way
I have another name picked for 4.6 which I like almost as much.

Let me know..