Dear ASDF users,
I just blessed ASDF 2.013.7 as 2.014.
As compared to 2.013, it includes a significant quality item that makes it essential for everyone who distributes ASDF without an implementation (e.g. Quicklisp). It also includes better SCL support, cosmetic improvements, and robustification of some corner cases. Tests have been added to prevent the regressions observed in the 2.013 release.
* Fixed bug preventing upgrade from 2.000 to 2.008 (test added) * Better support for URL pathnames on SCL (test added) * Robustified defsystem-depends-on * Cosmetic changes: * better more portably readable error messages. * remove forward references, again (test added) * canonicalize system names earlier (slight robustness improvement)
As usual, I invite people who distribute ASDF to update the version they ship, be it with their implementations, with their software distribution, etc.
Happy Happy Joy Joy
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." — Howard Aiken
- Faré snuerr-Er5WDRrDdr8NikgvhZjk3j@choyvp.tznar.bet [2011-03-28 14:08:18 +0000]:
I just blessed ASDF 2.013.7 as 2.014.
why is http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/asdf.lisp still "2.013"?
On 30 March 2011 14:50, Sam Steingold sds@gnu.org wrote:
- Faré snuerr-Er5WDRrDdr8NikgvhZjk3j@choyvp.tznar.bet [2011-03-28 14:08:18 +0000]:
I just blessed ASDF 2.013.7 as 2.014.
why is http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/asdf.lisp still "2.013"?
Because my release process (or lack thereof) sucks.
Fixed for now.
Thanks!
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] Only presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we." — Mark Twain
- Faré snuerr@tznvy.pbz [2011-03-30 16:23:32 +0000]:
On 30 March 2011 14:50, Sam Steingold sds@gnu.org wrote:
- Faré snuerr-Er5WDRrDdr8NikgvhZjk3j@choyvp.tznar.bet [2011-03-28 14:08:18 +0000]:
I just blessed ASDF 2.013.7 as 2.014.
why is http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/asdf.lisp still "2.013"?
Because my release process (or lack thereof) sucks.
a `release' target in the developer makefile helps.
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? 2. why wasn't whatever was it to be removed, removed?
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.
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. $
- why can I see 013 there?
That's an example in a docstring. It's immaterial which version is shown there.
- why wasn't whatever was it to be removed, removed?
Because 2.014 was an emergency release the week afterwards, rather than something that leaves time for developers to update their behavior. I notably need to talk to Attila regarding hu.dwim.asdf. Plan: in 2.015, there will be a warning. In 2.016, it will removed. Note: it was an unexported internal function.
Thanks for caring,
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] When my time on earth is completed, I want to go quietly in my sleep, like my grandfather ... not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
- 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. $
- 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".
testing has to be manual, but releasing does not have to be. (and can include many different consistency checks)...
Sure. And even the manual steps could be accounted for by a checklist enforced by nagging. Will work on it for next release. Maybe.
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".
Now "2.345". Hope this helps.
Thanks for your feedback,
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] If you're wrong against the dominant ideology, you'll be laughed at. If you're right against the dominant ideology, you'll be hated.
- Faré snuerr@tznvy.pbz [2011-03-31 17:47:32 +0000]:
IMO, it should either be the current version or something clearly abstract, e.g., "0.1234567".
Now "2.345". Hope this helps.
and what happens when you release 2.345? this looks like a valid version! how about 2.3456789? or, better yet, 2.718281828? (and sync with the manual! :-)
-
Faré -
Sam Steingold