Hi
* I think we should abandon version names like "Sep2006" and go for the usual numerical even/odd numbering scheme. This more consistent with the rest of the world and makes it easier for tools to determine e.g. which version is newer. I am not sure if we have ever released a numerical version, so I propose to call the current version 0.9 (odd, because it is a developer version) and bump it to 1.0 for the next release.
I like Sep2006, I think its cute, and I would actually rather the rest of the world moved to this system. However, I don't care enough to be the person who stops this.
* I think that Hugs should finally be moved to darcs instead of CVS, the current mix of version control systems is a bit obscure and we need darcs for the libraries, anyway. I have no former experience in doing this conversion, but I think others on this list have, so I'd prefer not doing this for myself (or at least get some hint/tricks/... from others who have done it before).
Definitely! Malcolm Wallace has done this a couple of times, on nhc/Hat and others, and probably knows how to do it well by now.
I don't know exactly how WinHugs is currently being built, but I guess that there are no fundamental reasons why the above changes could seriously break WinHugs development. Otherwise: Neil, please yell! :-)
I build the libraries using the makefile combo etc. on Mingw. That stage often breaks, since its rarely tested - anything to make it more reliable would be welcome. To build the libraries I typically delete my CVS tree and do a completely clean checkout, anything else goes wrong even more. I build the executables and installer using a small batch file and calls to Visual Studio - this is very easy, and I'm happy to keep this outside of the main Hugs build logic. Thanks Neil