Versioning and hosting

I received a FTBFS (fails to build from source) debian bug #560623 [1]
today, which turns out to be a patch compatibility bug already fixed by
Matthew (r7369). (BTW, what the hell?! patch is as old and stable a unix
tool as they come; what genius changed its behaviour?)

In the process of fixing this I noticed that svn browsing is broken [2].
Also the MLton server still runs woody and hasn't seen a security update in
years. Not to mention downloads and svn from it are extremely slow. If
there's interest, we could definitely offer some improved hosting in
Germany.

Before I upload a new version of the debian package and go through the
hassle of getting all the ports to build cleanly again (they are currenly
all green! [3]), I thought I'd also address bug
#559014<http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=559014>[4],
which is a complaint about the version number I picked for the MLton
snapshot; I called it 20091107.

Since MLton doesn't use version numbers, I can't really call it 1.99+r7369
to make it clear it's a prerelease snapshot of version 2.0. However, my
current version name is a bad choice because it implies that 20091107 was an
"official" release. The best I can propose is 20091211+r7369. Suggestions /
complaints?

Of course, if those two regressions on osx were fixed, maybe we'd have an
official release and the point would be moot. BTW, a colleague of mine
reports everything works under Snow Leopard except the regressions world5
and real. A small fix was needed which I'll commit shortly.

[1] <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=560623>
[2] <http://mlton.org/cgi-bin/viewsvn.cgi/mlton/trunk/?rev=HEAD>
[3] <https://buildd.debian.org/~luk/status/package.php?p=mlton<https://buildd.debian.org/%7Eluk/status/package.php?p=mlton>
>
[4] <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=559014>

_______________________________________________
MLton mailing list
[email protected]
http://mlton.org/mailman/listinfo/mlton