[Asdf-devel] Should MKCL wait for ASDF 3.1.3? [Was: Moving MKCL's bundled version to ASDF 3.1.2]
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Jean-Claude Beaudoin < jean.claude.beaudoin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Faré <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert, I took the liberty of committing this fix as 3.1.2.5. You might want a different fix, or to scratch this feature, etc.
I can confirm that, as of now, ASDF git master head is completing a "live upgrade" like ASDF 3.0.3.0.X did.
In the light of this recent bug fix (mentioned here above) is there any significant advantage for MKCL to move to ASDF 3.1.2 (or should it be 3.1.2.6 or later) over, for example, waiting for ASDF 3.1.3? Robert, I am under the impression that this is mostly your call, is it not?
Jean-Claude Beaudoin wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Jean-Claude Beaudoin <jean.claude.beaudoin@gmail.com <mailto:jean.claude.beaudoin@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Faré <fahree@gmail.com <mailto:fahree@gmail.com>> wrote:
Robert, I took the liberty of committing this fix as 3.1.2.5. You might want a different fix, or to scratch this feature, etc.
I can confirm that, as of now, ASDF git master head is completing a "live upgrade" like ASDF 3.0.3.0.X did.
In the light of this recent bug fix (mentioned here above) is there any significant advantage for MKCL to move to ASDF 3.1.2 (or should it be 3.1.2.6 or later) over, for example, waiting for ASDF 3.1.3?
Robert, I am under the impression that this is mostly your call, is it not?
That sounds right. I can make a 3.1.3 available. Unfortunately (for ASDF, but not for me), I am going on conference travel and vacation very soon. I will try to release 3.1.3 in the next couple of days, but if I fail, it will probably slip until after July 4th. Clearly, we need 3.1.3 because of the hot upgrade issues. No other features will make it into 3.1.3, although additional bug fixes might. 3.1.3 will not feature the new build scriptage, nor the syntax-control features. Those will have to wait for more in-depth screening. Best, Robert
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman@sift.info> wrote:
Jean-Claude Beaudoin wrote:
Robert, I am under the impression that this is mostly your call, is it not?
That sounds right. I can make a 3.1.3 available. Unfortunately (for ASDF, but not for me), I am going on conference travel and vacation very soon.
I will try to release 3.1.3 in the next couple of days, but if I fail, it will probably slip until after July 4th.
Thanks a lot!
Clearly, we need 3.1.3 because of the hot upgrade issues.
No other features will make it into 3.1.3, although additional bug fixes might. 3.1.3 will not feature the new build scriptage, nor the syntax-control features. Those will have to wait for more in-depth screening.
Yes, it's not realistic to add these now, and they will have to wait for 3.1.4 or later. On the other hand, since the syntax-control branch requires more screening, can the minimakefile branch make it first? Also, as witnessed by the breakage in: (let ((*package* (find-package :keyword))) (asdf:load-system :fare-csv)) the syntax-control branch needs to bind not just the *readtable* but also the *package* around each compilation. I can do that (in that branch), if you want, my plan being to have a *shared-package* as well as a *shared-readtable*, defaulting to (find-package :common-lisp-user) for backward compatibility. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org For those looking for security, be forewarned that there’s nothing more insecure than a political promise. — Harry Browne (1933–2006)
participants (3)
-
Faré -
Jean-Claude Beaudoin -
Robert P. Goldman