Replies: 5 comments 4 replies
|
Obviously use at your own risk, but I run the head of the dev branch exclusively as my shell at home and quite frequently at work (bash is mandated there for shared scripts). I doubt there's any security issues specific to the dev branch. I occasionally can trigger some crashes, but I have to really try. Any normal use or scripting will be fine, just maybe remember to open a new shell before things like, say, experimenting with namespaces or seeing if multiple |
|
Adding my own voice... I'm no super-duper user but I use HEAD on both my Mac and on two Linodes with no major problems. |
|
I think I'd look at what Arch might think they're doing with their packaged version. If it's calling itself MOD, it's not a repo build, they've changed something. |
In the ksh source code: src/cmd/ksh93/include/version.h: src/cmd/ksh93/Mamfile RE: If the MOD is added if working directory is found not clean (Mamfile), couldn't that simply be from Arch Linux (pre-)build artifacts and not necessarily mean that Arch packagers have changed any of the actual ksh source code? Arch verified for me that the package builds in AUR generally use git latest. However a given PKGBUILD file can be edited to specify a particular version, so one could probably build the official release. |
|
See also: #919 (comment) |
|
Does "1.1.0-alpha" in version string mean that 1.1.0 is initial release testing phase? I ask this because in general if software in a release testing phase, that's a good sign that it's becoming stable and any changes are generally fixes only. |
|
Kinda, but no. We don't really have a "release candidate" phase. Basically, when the code gets stable enough to be released it goes into its own branch and then bug fixes are applied there. So, the current code in the "1.0" branch is the 1.0.10 release plus all the bug fixes for it. The code in the "dev" branch will presumably be migrated to a "1.1" branch when it is time to release 1.1.0, and then all bug fixes will be applied there, with development continuing in the "dev" branch. The code in "dev" is still considered officially unstable, but we all use it because all the new features go in there. The "1.0" branch is supposed to only be conservative fixes to the original AT&T 93u+. The code in "dev" is actually pretty good, it's just that new features don't get backported. I don't know if McDutchie has a list of features that he wants there to be in "dev" before it becomes "1.1", but I know there's a few I promised that I still haven't gotten around to finishing... |
|
OK. Thanks kindly for great and detailed info. I'm currently using the dev branch. "unstable" can have varied connotations ranging from "unreliable/risky" (call it 1) to "OK but simply changing" (call it 10) and anything in between. From your explanation, I'm gathering that the dev branch is about a 9 on that range, where yes, there's always some risk, but generally the changes are controlled. Plus, what I'm already using hasn't had any serious issues, so I can wait until the next full release before updating again. Great shell! Thank You. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Hi, excited to see that ksh is being actively developed!
I built version 93u+m/1.1.0-alpha+0f6866b6/MOD 2025-06-22 using the AUR (Arch Linux) and noticed that it's not one of the official releases. I don't mind providing any feedback during usage, however, is using this version as a user shell (passwd) OK? "Use at my own risk" is fine also, I'm simply seeking a sense of whether this version has particularly interesting features since the 1.0.10 release and whether this version has any serious known issues that would cause pause regarding using it as login shell.
Thank You.
All reactions