I think the code is ready for 3.1.6. I see one regression: logical pathnames on CLISP, that don't play well with the newly used temporary file strategy. I propose we punt on that test and file a bug against CLISP. Maybe some day CLISP will have new maintainers who'll fix it. Anyone who uses logical pathnames DESERVES to lose. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org The best place to find a helping hand is at the end of your own arm.
On 9/22/15 Sep 22 -1:37 PM, Faré wrote:
I think the code is ready for 3.1.6.
I see one regression: logical pathnames on CLISP, that don't play well with the newly used temporary file strategy. I propose we punt on that test and file a bug against CLISP. Maybe some day CLISP will have new maintainers who'll fix it. Anyone who uses logical pathnames DESERVES to lose.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org The best place to find a helping hand is at the end of your own arm.
That sounds great. Would you mind filing a launchpad bug for this, if there isn't one already, and we can make that the first for 3.1.7.... There'll be no action on my end tomorrow or the next day because of the holiday and a delivery deadline the following day. I'll try to get to releasing after that. thanks! r
: Faré I think the code is ready for 3.1.6.
I see one regression: logical pathnames on CLISP, that don't play well with the newly used temporary file strategy. I propose we punt on that test and file a bug against CLISP. Maybe some day CLISP will have new maintainers who'll fix it. Anyone who uses logical pathnames DESERVES to lose.
:Robert That sounds great. Would you mind filing a launchpad bug for this, if there isn't one already, and we can make that the first for 3.1.7....
There'll be no action on my end tomorrow or the next day because of the holiday and a delivery deadline the following day. I'll try to get to releasing after that.
I filed these: https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1498629 https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/bugs/677/ I will mark the test as a known failure on clisp, if you want. I don't think it should block the release. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org "Diversity is compulsory along those axes we swear don't matter and strictly forbidden in the one domain that matters, ideology."
On 9/22/15 Sep 22 -2:18 PM, Faré wrote:
: Faré I think the code is ready for 3.1.6.
I see one regression: logical pathnames on CLISP, that don't play well with the newly used temporary file strategy. I propose we punt on that test and file a bug against CLISP. Maybe some day CLISP will have new maintainers who'll fix it. Anyone who uses logical pathnames DESERVES to lose.
:Robert That sounds great. Would you mind filing a launchpad bug for this, if there isn't one already, and we can make that the first for 3.1.7....
There'll be no action on my end tomorrow or the next day because of the holiday and a delivery deadline the following day. I'll try to get to releasing after that.
I filed these: https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1498629 https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/bugs/677/
I will mark the test as a known failure on clisp, if you want. I don't think it should block the release.
That sounds right. Is there an easy way to find all the tests we disable? Is that something you added with this notion of known failure? Cheers, r
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman@sift.net> wrote:
On 9/22/15 Sep 22 -2:18 PM, Faré wrote:
: Faré I think the code is ready for 3.1.6.
I see one regression: logical pathnames on CLISP, that don't play well with the newly used temporary file strategy. I propose we punt on that test and file a bug against CLISP. Maybe some day CLISP will have new maintainers who'll fix it. Anyone who uses logical pathnames DESERVES to lose.
:Robert That sounds great. Would you mind filing a launchpad bug for this, if there isn't one already, and we can make that the first for 3.1.7....
There'll be no action on my end tomorrow or the next day because of the holiday and a delivery deadline the following day. I'll try to get to releasing after that.
I filed these: https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1498629 https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/bugs/677/
I will mark the test as a known failure on clisp, if you want. I don't think it should block the release.
That sounds right. Is there an easy way to find all the tests we disable? Is that something you added with this notion of known failure?
Not really. Right now, you'd have to egrep '#[-+]|with-expected-failure' test/**/*.* Too many #[-+] (a few legitimate ones), not enough with-expected-failure. I was lazy and the test was utterly failing, so I just used #+ —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Wealth, like happiness, is never attained when sought after directly. It comes as a by-product of providing a useful service. — Henry Ford
"Far" == Far <Far> writes:
Far> test and file a bug against CLISP. Maybe some day CLISP will have new Far> maintainers who'll fix it. Anyone who uses logical pathnames DESERVES A new maintainer has volunteered (pjb). It remains to be seen if he follows through since there haven't been any changes/updates since he volunteered. -- Ray
Raymond Toy <toy.raymond@gmail.com> writes:
"Far" == Far <Far> writes:
Far> test and file a bug against CLISP. Maybe some day CLISP will have new Far> maintainers who'll fix it. Anyone who uses logical pathnames DESERVES
A new maintainer has volunteered (pjb). It remains to be seen if he follows through since there haven't been any changes/updates since he volunteered.
Unfortunately, my tax collector is getting more pressing, and my plans with clisp will have to be delayed. For the next months I will have to have a more remunerative programming activity. I'm sorry. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ “The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment.” -- Carl Bass CEO Autodesk
"Pascal" == Pascal J Bourguignon <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:
Pascal> Raymond Toy <toy.raymond@gmail.com> Pascal> writes: >>>>>>> "Far" == Far <Far> writes: >> Far> test and file a bug against CLISP. Maybe some day CLISP will have new Far> maintainers who'll fix it. Anyone who uses logical pathnames DESERVES >> >> A new maintainer has volunteered (pjb). It remains to be seen if he >> follows through since there haven't been any changes/updates since he >> volunteered. Pascal> Unfortunately, my tax collector is getting more pressing, and my plans Pascal> with clisp will have to be delayed. For the next months I will have to Pascal> have a more remunerative programming activity. I'm sorry. Sorry to hear that. I always liked clisp. -- Ray
participants (4)
-
Faré -
Pascal J. Bourguignon -
Raymond Toy -
Robert Goldman