Hello,
During the last few weeks, I have seen lots of people stumble over the slime-1.2.1 tarball, and having it not work. I think this is a pitty.
If nobody wants to engineer regular releases, it would be already a *lot* better to just substitute the slime-1.2.1 with weekly snapshots.
If you want I can set up the snapshot scripts and update the web page, although I would have to be added to the slime group at common-lisp.net.
Regards,
Mario.
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:57:43 +0200, m_mommer@yahoo.com wrote:
During the last few weeks, I have seen lots of people stumble over the slime-1.2.1 tarball, and having it not work. I think this is a pitty.
Who? Brand new users? Old-timers?? With the lack of posts here, I'd guess it's beginners, and you only hear about failures from them. Once I got slime working, I've never had a problem from CVS that wasn't immediately cleared up - i.e., no loss of opportunity to code Lisp.
If nobody wants to engineer regular releases, it would be already a *lot* better to just substitute the slime-1.2.1 with weekly snapshots.
Getting it from CVS is simple, is easily automated, and is the most 'up-to-date'. I'm strongly in favor of minimizing the workload on devs.
Hello,
GP lisper spambait@CloudDancer.com writes:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:57:43 +0200, m_mommer@yahoo.com wrote:
During the last few weeks, I have seen lots of people stumble over the slime-1.2.1 tarball, and having it not work. I think this is a pitty.
Who? Brand new users? Old-timers?? With the lack of posts here, I'd guess it's beginners, and you only hear about failures from them.
If what you are saying is that only newbies have problems with the 1.2.1 thing, well, yes. What does that change? I don't understand your point.
Once I got slime working, I've never had a problem from CVS that wasn't immediately cleared up - i.e., no loss of opportunity to code Lisp.
That's nice to hear. I've had no problems with slime _whatsoever_, and don't remember ever hitting a bug. The only things that have happened to me is that I discover by accident yet another feature :-)
If nobody wants to engineer regular releases, it would be already a *lot* better to just substitute the slime-1.2.1 with weekly snapshots.
Getting it from CVS is simple, is easily automated, and is the most 'up-to-date'. I'm strongly in favor of minimizing the workload on devs.
That's why I offered to help with this.
Regards, Mario.
On Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 01:28:05PM +0200, Mario S.Mommer wrote:
Hello,
GP lisper spambait@CloudDancer.com writes:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:57:43 +0200, m_mommer@yahoo.com wrote:
During the last few weeks, I have seen lots of people stumble over the slime-1.2.1 tarball, and having it not work. I think this is a pitty.
Who? Brand new users? Old-timers?? With the lack of posts here, I'd guess it's beginners, and you only hear about failures from them.
If what you are saying is that only newbies have problems with the 1.2.1 thing, well, yes. What does that change? I don't understand your point.
Just out of curiosity, how would one know about troubles with 1.2.1 that weren't posted to the list?
And what's involved in updating the tarball to a new version? I might be willing to help with that myself.
One reason for continuing to offer Slime through the tarball is that many larger company firewalls block the port used by CVS. It is apparently a Microsoft Server Admin recommendation for "security".
Regards,
-Jeff
Once I got slime working, I've never had a problem from CVS that wasn't immediately cleared up - i.e., no loss of opportunity to code Lisp.
That's nice to hear. I've had no problems with slime _whatsoever_, and don't remember ever hitting a bug. The only things that have happened to me is that I discover by accident yet another feature :-)
If nobody wants to engineer regular releases, it would be already a *lot* better to just substitute the slime-1.2.1 with weekly snapshots.
Getting it from CVS is simple, is easily automated, and is the most 'up-to-date'. I'm strongly in favor of minimizing the workload on devs.
That's why I offered to help with this.
Regards, Mario.
slime-devel site list slime-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/slime-devel
Jeffrey Cunningham jeffrey@cunningham.net writes:
Just out of curiosity, how would one know about troubles with 1.2.1 that weren't posted to the list?
People asking for help regarding SLIME (usually with SBCL, whose recent versions won't work with 1.2.1) in #lisp @ irc.freenode.net. Happens quite often.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:26:50 +0100, luismbo@gmail.com wrote:
Jeffrey Cunningham jeffrey@cunningham.net writes:
Just out of curiosity, how would one know about troubles with 1.2.1 that weren't posted to the list?
People asking for help regarding SLIME (usually with SBCL, whose recent versions won't work with 1.2.1) in #lisp @ irc.freenode.net. Happens quite often.
This problem is caused by #lisp constantly recommending SBCL to brand new wet-behind-the-ears lispers. This is like taking someone who has walked in the door, curious about pilot training, and putting them in the pilots seat of a 777, fully loaded and on a takeoff run. The results are predictable, but #lisp doesn't care.
Using this situation as justification for controlling slime releases is ludicrous.
GP lisper spambait@CloudDancer.com writes:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:26:50 +0100, luismbo@gmail.com wrote:
Jeffrey Cunningham jeffrey@cunningham.net writes:
Just out of curiosity, how would one know about troubles with 1.2.1 that weren't posted to the list?
People asking for help regarding SLIME (usually with SBCL, whose recent versions won't work with 1.2.1) in #lisp @ irc.freenode.net. Happens quite often.
This problem is caused by #lisp constantly recommending SBCL to brand new wet-behind-the-ears lispers. This is like taking someone who has walked in the door, curious about pilot training, and putting them in the pilots seat of a 777, fully loaded and on a takeoff run.
There seems to be no harm done. The newbies seem quite happy once they have the right slime. I think you have a wrong impression of the state of maturity of SBCL.
Besides, it is what most of us use, so it is easier for us to help if something breaks.
The results are predictable, but #lisp doesn't care.
The only thing that tends to break predictably is slime-1.2.1!
Using this situation as justification for controlling slime releases is ludicrous.
Nobody is saying "control slime releases", just, "make it a little easier to get current slime. Like, by putting a link to a more current snapshot in an obvious place." Or the link sugested by Marco Baringer (the link by Luis Oliveira is, IIRC, to a very old release).
That takes one developer 10 minutes, and he doesn't have to do it himself. I have offered help with this, and my offer still stands. I could take care of the web page. I promise I will not do anything the developers do not want. :-)
GP lisper spambait@CloudDancer.com writes:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:28:05 +0200, m_mommer@yahoo.com wrote:
GP lisper spambait@CloudDancer.com writes:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:57:43 +0200, m_mommer@yahoo.com wrote:
During the last few weeks, I have seen lots of people stumble over the slime-1.2.1 tarball, and having it not work. I think this is a pitty.
Who? Brand new users? Old-timers?? With the lack of posts here, I'd guess it's beginners, and you only hear about failures from them.
[snip]
Read my last phrase again.
Well, I hope I am wrong, but your phrase seems to sugest that you have some kind of contempt for newbies. That you think something like "stinking little newbies, all they ever do is fail".
Regards, Mario.
On Apr 11, 2006, at 12:33 AM, Mario S.Mommer wrote:
There seems to be no harm done. The newbies seem quite happy once they have the right slime. I think you have a wrong impression of the state of maturity of SBCL.
Besides, it is what most of us use, so it is easier for us to help if something breaks.
Is this true? Do most of the folks on this list use sbcl?
jjm
Joshua Moody Research Assistant USC/ISI 310.448.8395 Office 903
Joshua Moody moody@ISI.EDU writes:
Is this true? Do most of the folks on this list use sbcl?
I meant most folks on #lisp on freenode.
Regards, Mario.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:38:06 -0700, moody@ISI.EDU wrote:
Is this true? Do most of the folks on this list use sbcl?
NO.
I want stuff to run for more than a few days, without wasting enormous amounts of time having to upgrade this or fix that again, and again, and again...
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:33:23 +0200, m_mommer@yahoo.com wrote:
GP lisper spambait@CloudDancer.com writes:
Besides, it is what most of us use, so it is easier for us to help if something breaks.
Which it will, on a regular basis, great for the egos of #lisp.
The results are predictable, but #lisp doesn't care.
The only thing that tends to break predictably is slime-1.2.1!
You have it backwards.
It's long been known that using a newer SBCL version than the slime version is unlikely to work. Since that problem doesn't occur with other lisps, Occams Razor sharply points out the real source of the confusion.
GP lisper spambait@CloudDancer.com writes:
The only thing that tends to break predictably is slime-1.2.1!
You have it backwards.
Get real. The 1.2.1 tarball is outdated by _any_ accounting. It is obvious that yoou don't like SBCL, which is your prerogative. SBCL is not the issue here, however, but Slime tarballs.
If Mario is willing to make tarballs on a regular basis then I say more power to him.
If no-one is willing to make any releases at all, that is fine too, and we can move the outdated tarballs to a history/ directory. This, however doesn't seem to be the case.
I propose that we give Mario the godly authority to follow any release schedule he like, incrementing the point-release-number for each, but maybe starting with 1.3.0 to make a clean break with 1.2.1, so that the second release would be 1.3.1.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus Schemer: "Buddha is small, clean, and serious." Lispnik: "Buddha is big, has hairy armpits, and laughs."
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:26:44 +0300, nikodemus@random-state.net wrote:
GP lisper spambait@CloudDancer.com writes:
The only thing that tends to break predictably is slime-1.2.1!
You have it backwards.
Get real.
Heh, nice trick, invent a problem, propose a fix, and insist that it be done, while telling anyone pointing at the man behind the curtain that they are wrong, and failing to answer their questions.
Nowhere do you demonstrate a real problem, the only real problem lies with the usual startup problems of new users, made worse by putting them on the SBCL fast track. Slime has been released via CVS for a long time now, rather successfully. Other than SBCL, what else doesn't work on a regular basis with slime?
I like SBCL as software, what I don't like is the attitude of most of the SBCL developers that only they know what is best for all of us.
Heh, nice trick, invent a problem, propose a fix, and insist that it be done, while telling anyone pointing at the man behind the curtain that they are wrong, and failing to answer their questions.
Let's see. Problem as Mario stated it, which I happen to agree with:
"Slime 1.2.1 tarball is outdated."
Mario's proposed fix:
"I can make new tarballs if that is ok with Slime developers."
Your man behind the curtain:
"SBCL developers aren't nice, and #lisp isn't too helpfull."
While I can agree with your sentiments I don't see the relevance here: there is a demonstrated need for tarballs (people behind company firewalls can't always get at CVS), and unless you want to claim 1.2.1 as being up to date new ones are needed. Whether they are releases or automagic CVS snapshots is a different, but equally unrelated to SBCL and #lisp, issue.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus Schemer: "Buddha is small, clean, and serious." Lispnik: "Buddha is big, has hairy armpits, and laughs."
On 4/12/06, Nikodemus Siivola nikodemus@random-state.net wrote:
Your man behind the curtain:
"SBCL developers aren't nice, and #lisp isn't too helpfull."
While I can agree with your sentiments I don't see the relevance here: there is a demonstrated need for tarballs (people behind company firewalls can't always get at CVS), and unless you want to claim 1.2.1 as being up to date new ones are needed. Whether they are releases or automagic CVS snapshots is a different, but equally unrelated to SBCL and #lisp, issue.
Actually, he was also claiming that you need bleeding-edge SLIME for the latest SBCL, which hasn't been the case for a while.
Really, just some release from within the last 10 months would solve the problem. Back when SLIME and SBCL were both in rapid motion, you needed a careful match of the two. However, I last updated one of my SLIMEs when I switched to the 0.9.x series of SBCL some 9 or 10 months ago, and that SLIME works fine with SBCL >= 0.9.0, recent CMUCL's, and Allegro 7 and 8.
The moral of this is that SLIME has been stable in terms of what it demands from a Lisp for quite a long time. As far as I'm concerned it was feature-complete when it grew proper Unicode support. In case anyone is wondering why I haven't contributed to SLIME in the last year or so, it's because nothing major has been broken, and I haven't had any itches I wanted Emacs to scratch. When it hasn't done everything I needed it to, I've submitted patches to that effect -- which explains what I'm doing here, expressing support for what seems self-evidently a good thing: Mario Mommer sees a need for some regular releases or snapshots, and is willing to do the work to make it happen. One might wonder what this "G P" fellow is doing here, aside from trolling about SBCL, filling up everyone's mailboxes, and being a general pain in the ass.
On Monday 2006-04-10 at 13:28:05 +0200, Mario S.Mommer wrote:
I've had no problems with slime _whatsoever_, and don't remember ever hitting a bug. The only things that have happened to me is that I discover by accident yet another feature :-)
I used to have trouble-free slime, too, but ever since December or so, on both Debian and Red Hat systems, I've been getting periodic "freeze ups" where I have to SIGTERM the lisp process and re-run M-x slime. It was only recently (when I read someone's comment -- here?) that I realised this occurs when CMUCL does its garbage collection. Turning GC off avoids the situation.
Does anyone know the solution to this?
Failing that, is there a quick and easy way to restart slime to get a fresh lisp image? (A sort of manual garbage collection! ;-))
I'm using recent CVS slime (various since December) and Emacs 21.4.1, with CMUCL 19a.
Thanks,
David
I just started running CVS Slime with CMUCL 19a on Debian this week and I have the problem too. I don't know a fix, however.
On 4/10/06, David Trudgett wpower@zeta.org.au wrote:
On Monday 2006-04-10 at 13:28:05 +0200, Mario S.Mommer wrote:
I've had no problems with slime _whatsoever_, and don't remember ever hitting a bug. The only things that have happened to me is that I discover by accident yet another feature :-)
I used to have trouble-free slime, too, but ever since December or so, on both Debian and Red Hat systems, I've been getting periodic "freeze ups" where I have to SIGTERM the lisp process and re-run M-x slime. It was only recently (when I read someone's comment -- here?) that I realised this occurs when CMUCL does its garbage collection. Turning GC off avoids the situation.
Does anyone know the solution to this?
Failing that, is there a quick and easy way to restart slime to get a fresh lisp image? (A sort of manual garbage collection! ;-))
I'm using recent CVS slime (various since December) and Emacs 21.4.1, with CMUCL 19a.
Thanks,
David
-- David Trudgett http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
Philosophers continue to insist that war could, logically, be all right, ignoring the powerful reasons which make the logical possibility of a just war a non-actuality.
-- J. Teichman, "Pacifism and the Just War: A Study in Applied Philosophy", Basil Blackwell, 1986, p.108
slime-devel site list slime-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/slime-devel
+ David Trudgett wpower@zeta.org.au:
| I used to have trouble-free slime, too, but ever since December or so, | on both Debian and Red Hat systems, I've been getting periodic "freeze | ups" where I have to SIGTERM the lisp process and re-run M-x slime. | [...] | Does anyone know the solution to this?
Upgrading to cmucl 19c cured it for me.
- Harald
Hi Harald!
On Tuesday 2006-04-11 at 09:04:58 +0200, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
| I used to have trouble-free slime, too, but ever since December or so, | on both Debian and Red Hat systems, I've been getting periodic "freeze | ups" where I have to SIGTERM the lisp process and re-run M-x slime. | [...] | Does anyone know the solution to this?
Upgrading to cmucl 19c cured it for me.
OK, thanks for that! I'll look into it. I assumed I was using the latest version as it wasn't long ago that I downloaded it.
Happy Lisping!
David
Cured me, too! Thanks, Harald!
On 4/11/06, Harald Hanche-Olsen hanche@math.ntnu.no wrote:
- David Trudgett wpower@zeta.org.au:
| I used to have trouble-free slime, too, but ever since December or so, | on both Debian and Red Hat systems, I've been getting periodic "freeze | ups" where I have to SIGTERM the lisp process and re-run M-x slime. | [...] | Does anyone know the solution to this?
Upgrading to cmucl 19c cured it for me.
- Harald
slime-devel site list slime-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/slime-devel
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:28:05 +0200, m_mommer@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello,
GP lisper spambait@CloudDancer.com writes:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:57:43 +0200, m_mommer@yahoo.com wrote:
During the last few weeks, I have seen lots of people stumble over the slime-1.2.1 tarball, and having it not work. I think this is a pitty.
Who? Brand new users? Old-timers?? With the lack of posts here, I'd guess it's beginners, and you only hear about failures from them.
If what you are saying is that only newbies have problems with the 1.2.1 thing, well, yes. What does that change? I don't understand your point.
Read my last phrase again.
Mario S.Mommer m_mommer@yahoo.com writes:
During the last few weeks, I have seen lots of people stumble over the slime-1.2.1 tarball, and having it not work. I think this is a pitty.
If nobody wants to engineer regular releases, it would be already a *lot* better to just substitute the slime-1.2.1 with weekly snapshots.
If you want I can set up the snapshot scripts and update the web page, although I would have to be added to the slime group at common-lisp.net.
FWIW this sounds like a great idea to me.
Mario S.Mommer m_mommer@yahoo.com writes:
Hello,
During the last few weeks, I have seen lots of people stumble over the slime-1.2.1 tarball, and having it not work. I think this is a pitty.
If nobody wants to engineer regular releases, it would be already a *lot* better to just substitute the slime-1.2.1 with weekly snapshots.
If you want I can set up the snapshot scripts and update the web page, although I would have to be added to the slime group at common-lisp.net.
wouldn't it just be much easier to provide a link to:
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/root.tar.gz?root=slime&view=t...
?
Marco Baringer mb@bese.it writes:
wouldn't it just be much easier to provide a link to:
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/root.tar.gz?root=slime&view=t...
Or perhaps:
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/slime.tar.gz?root=slime&only_...
Mario S.Mommer m_mommer@yahoo.com writes:
If you want I can set up the snapshot scripts and update the web page, although I would have to be added to the slime group at common-lisp.net.
i updated slime's home page to point to the cvs tarball. i also asked erik to add you to slime's group if you feel like installing those scripts (or even better creating releases when slime isn't too broken).
Marco Baringer mb@bese.it writes:
Mario S.Mommer m_mommer@yahoo.com writes:
If you want I can set up the snapshot scripts and update the web page, although I would have to be added to the slime group at common-lisp.net.
i updated slime's home page to point to the cvs tarball. i also asked erik to add you to slime's group if you feel like installing those scripts (or even better creating releases when slime isn't too broken).
Ok. Thanks! I'll do my best to make nice releases every now and then.
Regards, Mario.
-
David Trudgett -
GP lisper -
Harald Hanche-Olsen -
Jeffrey Cunningham -
Joshua Moody -
Luke Gorrie -
Luís Oliveira -
Marco Baringer -
Mario S.Mommer -
Nikodemus Siivola -
Thomas F. Burdick -
Tom Pierce