On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:05:55AM -0500, Zach Beane wrote:
Marijn Haverbeke marijnh@gmail.com writes:
Yes, recently someone submitted a patch that broke a bunch of things. It has already been reverted in the git repository, but I guess quicklisp picked up the broken version (since it seems to assume that repositories are never broken). Update from git, I guess.
Urghs, I just created some (Debian) package building scripts that rely on Quicklisp (i.e. that install a temporsry quicklisp to build standalone binaries). The idea that quicklisp might deploy some arbitrary checkout makes me frown.
I don't assume that repositories are never broken. I don't have a good system in place to do pre-release testing beyond "Does it build?" I'd like to do more thorough testing, but setting up the infrastructure for it takes time.
It might be a good idea to offer the upstream programmers a way to provide a branch/tag to mark quicklisp ready versions of the code (I personally use git-flow and that has a branch named 'release').
Cheers, Ralf Mattes