* Faré <snuerr@tznvy.pbz> [2011-03-30 17:31:44 +0000]:
Because my release process (or lack thereof) sucks.
a `release' target in the developer makefile helps.
It would. Too many manual steps right now, including doing things on several machines to check implementations that won't run under Linux amd64. Or I could have chroot's and/or emulators. Sigh. We'll see.
testing has to be manual, but releasing does not have to be. (and can include many different consistency checks)...
Fixed for now.
nope.
$ grep 013 modules/asdf/asdf.lisp (ASDF:VERSION-SATISFIES (ASDF:ASDF-VERSION) \"2.013\")." $ grep 014 modules/asdf/asdf.lisp ;;; This is ASDF 2.014: Another System Definition Facility. (asdf-version "2.014") ;; Will be removed in a future release, e.g. 2.014. $
1. why can I see 013 there? That's an example in a docstring. It's immaterial which version is shown there.
immaterial, but confusing. IMO, it should either be the current version or something clearly abstract, e.g., "0.1234567". -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on CentOS release 5.5 (Final) X http://dhimmi.com http://pmw.org.il http://honestreporting.com http://ffii.org http://thereligionofpeace.com http://iris.org.il Bug free software merely has random features.