Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

Hello,

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:30:22PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > And then we have Guile, whose development pace leaves a lot to be
> > > desired, if we really want it to become the GNU standard extension
> > > languages.  Strangely, the Guile developers, including Andy Wingo,
> > > don't seem to do anything about that.  There are no discussions about
> > > making the project more active, none at all.  Does that mean the Guile
> > > level of activity is OK with Andy?  If so, how does that live in peace
> > > with the seemingly grave outlook for the rest of GNU?
> > 
> This argument is a simple application of the health criteria you
> consider significant to your own work as a project manager.

bickering about the health of individual GNU packages is probably not very
interesting concerning the health of the GNU project as a whole. But here
you are simply wrong. I have no particular affiliation with GNU Guile,
except that I use it when working on GNU Guix. But I can look up the ftp
directory:
   https://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/guile/

Andy's (of course somewhat subjective, but reasonably debatable) criterion
of health of a package was "a release in the last three years". So as you
claim to do to ("this argument is a simple application..."), let us apply
the criterion to GNU Guile.
I see releases in every year since 1997, except for 1998, 2001, 2005, 2015.
So "a simple application of the health criteria you consider significant"
shows that GNU Guile has been a healthy project since its start, and what
you write above is simply not true.

Andreas