I really don't see what that buys, but if so, please make it 3.1.8 rather than 3.2.0.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016, 17:14 Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.net wrote:
On 11/27/16 Nov 27 -1:11 PM, Faré wrote:
I asked you many times if you knew what you were doing, but I don't think you did wrong at any point, except maybe for not realizing you had changed plan. [Also, I'm a proponent of releasing more often, but that's a different debate.]
I'd like to proceed forward. I don't any good reason to undo any of the current changes.
Well, as my earlier message suggests, we don't have to undo anything: we can simply make a release out of the state before the removal of operation initargs. That would give everyone time to adjust.
I think the person who cares the most is Daniel, so Daniel, what do you say?
If you want to keep supporting make-build and/or if Daniel wants to support it on the ECL side, that's possible (see my proposed reimplementation in comments to !34). I'm not aware of any other breakage.
Anton, can you run cl-test-grid with ASDF master?
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics•
Communism is feudality without chivalry. — Faré
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Robert P. Goldman rpgoldman@sift.net
wrote:
This is clearly my fault. I lost track of the plan. Going forward, I
need to get a better handle on plans -- I've been to reactive, having discussions spread across launchpad, GitLab, IRC, and the mailing list.
Here's one proposal: instead of reverting the recent merge, we could
cut a release off master before the merge. That would give us a less disruptive release (at the expense of a little complexity on the release branch).
Would this make everyone happy?