[armedbear-devel] Re: cl-test-grid: Testing ABCL-1.2.0-RC
Agreed: fixing STD-FIND-METHOD-COMBINATION seems to be necessary. @anton: thanks for the tests @rudi: dunno if this is you, but could you take a look to see if this is easy? If you fix on trunk, I will take care of the release. At this point, I would release abcl-1.2.1 and announce, as abcl-1.2.0 has already been "softly launched" without announcement. -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad idea? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in email? On Jun 9, 2013, at 1:15, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov@yandex.ru> wrote:
08.06.2013, 02:35, "Anton Vodonosov" <avodonosov@yandex.ru>:
08.06.2013, 02:13, "Erik Huelsmann" <ehuels@gmail.com>:
Hi Anton, Could you test ABCL-1.2.0-RC with the latest Quicklisp snapshot and publish reports? I'd love to see how we're doing in the CL ecosystem before we release!
Thanks!
Bye,
Erik.
Hello, Erik.
Just today I started the tests, on the 1.2.0 source tarball from abcl.org and on the current svn head. They are running on your VM. The results will be a day or two later.
Best regards, - Anton
Hello again.
The results for ABCL 1.2.0 RC (the soruce tarball form abcl.org) are ready. Comparision with ABCL 1.1.1: http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/abcl/abcl-diff10.html
As you see there are some regressions - results that were green and have become red. Most of the seem to be caused by the same error: Wrong number of arguments for #<STD-FIND-METHOD-COMBINATION {17D2F0E}>.
Best regards, - Anton
Should be fixed in #14529 - at least, (make-instance 'standard-generic-function) works now and broke before that commit. Rudi On Jun 9, 2013, at 07:32, Mark Evenson <evenson@panix.com> wrote:
Agreed: fixing STD-FIND-METHOD-COMBINATION seems to be necessary.
@anton: thanks for the tests
@rudi: dunno if this is you, but could you take a look to see if this is easy? If you fix on trunk, I will take care of the release.
At this point, I would release abcl-1.2.1 and announce, as abcl-1.2.0 has already been "softly launched" without announcement.
-- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad idea? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in email?
On Jun 9, 2013, at 1:15, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov@yandex.ru> wrote:
08.06.2013, 02:35, "Anton Vodonosov" <avodonosov@yandex.ru>:
08.06.2013, 02:13, "Erik Huelsmann" <ehuels@gmail.com>:
Hi Anton, Could you test ABCL-1.2.0-RC with the latest Quicklisp snapshot and publish reports? I'd love to see how we're doing in the CL ecosystem before we release!
Thanks!
Bye,
Erik.
Hello, Erik.
Just today I started the tests, on the 1.2.0 source tarball from abcl.org and on the current svn head. They are running on your VM. The results will be a day or two later.
Best regards, - Anton
Hello again.
The results for ABCL 1.2.0 RC (the soruce tarball form abcl.org) are ready. Comparision with ABCL 1.1.1: http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/abcl/abcl-diff10.html
As you see there are some regressions - results that were green and have become red. Most of the seem to be caused by the same error: Wrong number of arguments for #<STD-FIND-METHOD-COMBINATION {17D2F0E}>.
Best regards, - Anton
Running tests 09.06.2013, 21:10, "Rudi Schlatte" <rudi@constantly.at>:
Should be fixed in #14529 - at least, (make-instance 'standard-generic-function) works now and broke before that commit.
Rudi
On Jun 9, 2013, at 07:32, Mark Evenson <evenson@panix.com> wrote:
Agreed: fixing STD-FIND-METHOD-COMBINATION seems to be necessary.
@anton: thanks for the tests
@rudi: dunno if this is you, but could you take a look to see if this is easy? If you fix on trunk, I will take care of the release.
At this point, I would release abcl-1.2.1 and announce, as abcl-1.2.0 has already been "softly launched" without announcement.
-- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad idea? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in email?
On Jun 9, 2013, at 1:15, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov@yandex.ru> wrote:
08.06.2013, 02:35, "Anton Vodonosov" <avodonosov@yandex.ru>:
08.06.2013, 02:13, "Erik Huelsmann" <ehuels@gmail.com>:
Hi Anton, Could you test ABCL-1.2.0-RC with the latest Quicklisp snapshot and publish reports? I'd love to see how we're doing in the CL ecosystem before we release!
Thanks!
Bye,
Erik. Hello, Erik.
Just today I started the tests, on the 1.2.0 source tarball from abcl.org and on the current svn head. They are running on your VM. The results will be a day or two later.
Best regards, - Anton Hello again.
The results for ABCL 1.2.0 RC (the soruce tarball form abcl.org) are ready. Comparision with ABCL 1.1.1: http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/abcl/abcl-diff10.html
As you see there are some regressions - results that were green and have become red. Most of the seem to be caused by the same error: Wrong number of arguments for #<STD-FIND-METHOD-COMBINATION {17D2F0E}>.
Best regards, - Anton
09.06.2013, 21:10, "Rudi Schlatte" <rudi@constantly.at>:
Should be fixed in #14529 - at least, (make-instance 'standard-generic-function) works now and broke before that commit.
Rudi
Comparison of ABCL 1.1.1 and ABCL svn revision 14529: http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/abcl/abcl-diff12.html As you see, the STD-FIND-METHOD-COMBINATION error is gone. There are some other regressions, for example cl-colors. To reproduce it a the cl-test-grid.cloud.efficito.com machine: rm -rf .cache/common-lisp/ java -jar lisps/abcl/dist/abcl.jar --noinit --nosystem --load quicklisp/setup.lisp --eval "(ql:quickload :cl-colors)" The above is for the ABCL svn revisoin 1459. For ABCL 1.1.1 java -jar lisps/abcl-bin-1.1.1/abcl.jar --noinit --nosystem --load quicklisp/setup.lisp --eval "(ql:quickload :cl-colors)" xcvb-bridge fails most likely due to new ASDF. Can not comment other failures (exscribe, g-lib-cffi, cl-6502) Best regards, - Anton
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov@yandex.ru> wrote:
xcvb-bridge fails most likely due to new ASDF. Can not comment other failures (exscribe, g-lib-cffi, cl-6502)
The old xcvb-bridge in QL is broken; the newer XCVB from git not only handles but requires a recent ASDF, which is why it can't be used by the current Quicklisp.
11.06.2013, 07:30, "Faré" <fahree@gmail.com>:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov@yandex.ru> wrote:
xcvb-bridge fails most likely due to new ASDF. Can not comment other failures (exscribe, g-lib-cffi, cl-6502)
The old xcvb-bridge in QL is broken; the newer XCVB from git not only handles but requires a recent ASDF, which is why it can't be used by the current Quicklisp.
To be even more precise, the newer XCVB from git CAN be used with new Quicklisp if new ASDF is loaded into the Lips. As we know, Quicklisp first tries (require 'asdf), so if the Lisp implementation comes with newer ASDF, the newer XCVB from git works. So we can hope that in the next Quicklisp release we will have the newer XCVB. Actually this probably depends on the ASDF version shipped with SBCL, as Xach evaluates all new library versions using SBCL before including them into Quicklisp.
Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov@yandex.ru> writes:
11.06.2013, 07:30, "Faré" <fahree@gmail.com>:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov@yandex.ru> wrote:
xcvb-bridge fails most likely due to new ASDF. Can not comment other failures (exscribe, g-lib-cffi, cl-6502)
The old xcvb-bridge in QL is broken; the newer XCVB from git not only handles but requires a recent ASDF, which is why it can't be used by the current Quicklisp.
To be even more precise, the newer XCVB from git CAN be used with new Quicklisp if new ASDF is loaded into the Lips. As we know, Quicklisp first tries (require 'asdf), so if the Lisp implementation comes with newer ASDF, the newer XCVB from git works.
So we can hope that in the next Quicklisp release we will have the newer XCVB.
Actually this probably depends on the ASDF version shipped with SBCL, as Xach evaluates all new library versions using SBCL before including them into Quicklisp.
A number of projects that build only with ASDF3 features (xcvb, exscribe, inferior-shell, perhaps more) are unlikely to be in the next update of the Quicklisp dist. Zach
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Zach Beane <xach@xach.com> wrote:
Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov@yandex.ru> writes:
Actually this probably depends on the ASDF version shipped with SBCL, as Xach evaluates all new library versions using SBCL before including them into Quicklisp.
A number of projects that build only with ASDF3 features (xcvb, exscribe, inferior-shell, perhaps more) are unlikely to be in the next update of the Quicklisp dist.
I just released an XCVB 0.603 that actually works with ASDF 3 (previously, I had only fixed XCVB to compile with it). It I had to patch some previous untested parts of ASDF, so it requires 3.0.1.7. Inferior-shell *should* be able to compile with ASDF 2. If not, it's a bug. Meh: not as easy for me to test as I'd like. XCVB, exscribe, will probably not be missed by anyone. The big missing library that depends on ASDF 3 will probably be iolib. Hopefully, SBCL updates its ASDF soon, and Quicklisp soon thereafter. It certainly took some time, but the issues have been mostly kinked out. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not. — Thomas Jefferson
participants (5)
-
Anton Vodonosov -
Faré -
Mark Evenson -
Rudi Schlatte -
Zach Beane