I suspect the difference expected between downloading what happens to be in the CVS and a formal version number is the quality and quantity of testing. Automated regression tests, for instance, if they don't already exist, would make sense for version releases that perhaps are a bit heavyweight for every check in (though the more automated it is, the less painful it would be).

Brad Miller

-----Original Message----- From: slime-devel-bounces@common-lisp.net [mailto:slime-devel-bounces@common-lisp.net] On Behalf Of mb@bese.it Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 1:27 PM To: slime-devel@common-lisp.net Subject: [slime-devel] Re: Appeal from luserland

Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com writes:

As a long time Slime fan, I am wondering if it would be possible to get the slime developers to start making releases? Right now the operating model seems to be to grab the head of CVS and go with that, but I'm never sure if such grabbing will create problems for me. Even more, slime is now a component of McCLIM and (I think) other software packages that I've been using. It would be nice if people could say, "McCLIM requires Slime 4.7".

who's to say upgrading from version 2.0 to 2.1 (or whatever) wouldn't create problems for you? i'm not trying to be a smart ass here, i'm just saying that it'd be no less painful to update from one version to another than it is to do a cvs up every now and then.

that said if some one has the time to test and package slime i have nothing against putting up said tarballs on the web page (though there will always be the note that if you run into problems with those tarballs the first thing to be will be to grab cvs and see if the problem remains).