The two issues below have been fixed and a few other issues which were resolved in the mean time have been backported to 0.26.1 as well. I was able to build the binaries using the abcl.release target (instead of using the separate abcl.binary.* targets), so it seems all our issues are now fixed and we can move to 0.26.1 next week.
Is there anybody with any remaining issues or fixes up his sleeve?
Anybody wants to report an issue with the current 0.26.x branch?
If not, I'm planning to roll the 0.26.1 release mid next week.
Bye,
Erik.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Erik Huelsmann
<ehuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Mark Evenson
<evenson@panix.com> wrote:
On 7/10/11 12:53 AM, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
I've created the 0.26 release branch after updating CHANGES.
If there are no further objections, I'll continue the release process by
signing the release.
It'd be very helpful if one of the other committers can update the
webpages, as I won't have time to do that today or tomorrow.
[Fixed and backported to the abcl-0.26.x branch][1].
[1]: http://trac.common-lisp.net/armedbear/changeset/13391
My vote would be to figure out the stack overflow reported in [ticket #154][2] as well as whatever is causing the ansi-interpreted errors that Ville is noticing, and move to releasing an abcl-0.26.1.
[2]: http://trac.common-lisp.net/armedbear/ticket/154
Erik is on his first day of vacation, and probably has limited upload bandwidth, so we may be a bit constrained here.
Yea, it'd be very convenient for me to fix any remaining issues and go for a 0.26.1 in 2 weeks. Also because my signing key is most easily operated at home.
Let's take some time to solve these regressions and scrap the brown paper bag release :-)
Bye,
Erik.