Thank you very much, Anton. Question: is the inner-conditional-test failure on SBCL 1.3.21 not a regression? I just loaded this system and tested it on my mac with SBCL 1.4.3, and it worked fine, so I'm inclined to treat this is not a problem. Also, the inner conditional system has a readme saying it's not maintained and please not to use it.
What about reversi on CCL 1.9? I guess if I understand correctly, reversi must have passed on CCL 1.10 and 1.11, so probably I shouldn't worry about this, either.
Fare, what do you think? Should I release this version, or wait a little longer and see if we can get the syntax fix in, as well?
Maybe I should release this as 3.3.2, and make the syntax-fixed version of ASDF be 3.4, since (for some people) it might be a bigger change.
Best, r
On 17 Mar 2018, at 7:51, Anton Vodonosov wrote:
Results for these lisps:
abcl-1.5.0-fasl43-linux-x86 ccl-1.10-r16196-f96-linux-x86 ccl-1.11-r16635-f96-linux-x86 ccl-1.9-r15756-f96-linux-x86 clisp-2.49-unix-x86 ecl-16.1.2-unknown-linux-x86-bytecode ecl-16.1.2-unknown-linux-x86-lisp-to-c sbcl-1.1.16-linux-x86 sbcl-1.3.21-linux-x86
show no regressions.
ACL tests are running - needed to re-run them because licence refresh was needed.
The report: https://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/asdf/asdf-diff-73.html
Best regards,
- Anton
13.03.2018, 16:53, "Anton Vodonosov" avodonosov@yandex.ru:
I've started tests for 3.3.1.7
11.03.2018, 06:11, "Faré" fahree@gmail.com:
Dear Anton,
can you try your test suite again against 3.3.1.7 ? I think we're mostly ready to release 3.3.2 this time, with its many bugs fixes (and bug fix fixes).
Can you also try the branch made by Robert for syntax-control + a copy of the standard readtable as default?
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Wir Mathematiker sind alle ein bisschen meschugge. (We mathematicans are all a bit crazy). — Lev Landau