Zsh Mailing List Archive Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: commits for possible 5.9.1

X-seq: zsh-workers 54415
From: Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: commits for possible 5.9.1
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 16:51:37 +0100 (BST)
Archived-at: <https://zsh.org/workers/54415>
Feedback-id: 20260429-p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx:oxsmtp-prd-nl-vmo:Authrelay:p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <CAH+w=7aT1bSpvgY5HkWRDjmWvOObLjkvG_Dq3HhU4LXxe+23wA@mail.gmail.com>
List-id: <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
References: <74ce1b88-57b2-4a2e-bf34-dcfe797a934a@app.fastmail.com> <1085353672.395911.1777278621161@mail.virginmedia.com> <CAGdYchtkMv5Py-YpLxeXeobYABWBH8=LzEF66O8xsqDJ2PJ_kQ@mail.gmail.com> <604806619.58311.1777476342166@mail.virginmedia.com> <CAH+w=7aT1bSpvgY5HkWRDjmWvOObLjkvG_Dq3HhU4LXxe+23wA@mail.gmail.com>

> On 29/04/2026 16:46 BST Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > [...] that would mean we can go straight to a
> > full release, which saves a lot of legwork.
> 
> In that case I (or someone) would need to finish applying the five (?)
> patches Philippe has already produced, and we should just go right
> ahead to 5.10 and not call it 5.9.1.

Yes, "a full release" was intended to imply that it was not in the scope
of an interim stable release, I think this aspect is likely
uncontroversial.

The controversy would be if anyone foresees problems with that plan.

cheers
pws

References:
- commits for possible 5.9.1
  - From: dana
- Re: commits for possible 5.9.1
  - From: Peter Stephenson
- Re: commits for possible 5.9.1
  - From: Philippe Altherr
- Re: commits for possible 5.9.1
  - From: Peter Stephenson
- Re: commits for possible 5.9.1
  - From: Bart Schaefer

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author