Requesting input on some possible low-level changes

On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 20:11, Camm Maguire wrote:
> Greetings, and thanks as always for your feedback.  I cannot reproduce
> this with the current 2.6.1 cvs build, recently released as a Debian
> package.  (ftp.gnu.org is *still* down, so in the interim, we will be
> using cvs and the Debian pool as our means of distribution.  We have
> also moved to a linux kernel style release naming convention.  x.y.z,
> with y *even* is stable, y odd unstable/development.  So basically
> we've renamed the pending 2.5.4, never released, to 2.6.1.)

Thank you for responding so quickly. I updated my cvs checkout the the
Version_2_6_1 branch and the problem I reported went away. That branch
is still a work in progress, correct?

I have a more fundamental question: should we be building Maxima with
ANSI GCL, or traditional GCL? Of course, the plan has always been to go
with the ANSI branch eventually, but I thought we should wait until it
had stabilized to some degree. Is the ANSI branch ready for production
use? (I apologize if the answer is obvious -- I haven't paid attention
to this issue lately.)

Best,
Jim