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".
I have to admit that in my old age I'm becoming less and less of a hacker and more and more of a user.... :-) or maybe :-(
Thursday, February 22, 2007, 2:49:28 AM, Fred Gilham wrote:
FG> As a long time Slime fan, I am wondering if it would be possible to get FG> the slime developers to start making releases? Right now the operating FG> model seems to be to grab the head of CVS and go with that, but I'm FG> never sure if such grabbing will create problems for me. Even more, FG> slime is now a component of McCLIM and (I think) other software packages FG> that I've been using. It would be nice if people could say, "McCLIM FG> requires Slime 4.7".
Totally agree! I'm still stuck with Slime 2.0, but I would upgrade ASAP when the new version is released. The reason is that the upgrading procedure takes some time, and I don't want to do it every day, for example, just to fix a small bug. But a new version is usually a good motivation to upgrade.
+ Timofei Shatrov grue@mail.ru:
| Totally agree! I'm still stuck with Slime 2.0, but I would upgrade | ASAP when the new version is released.
It used to be the case that one could track FAIRLY-STABLE and get closer to the cutting edge without too much danger, but I see that FAIRLY-STABLE seems to be older than 2.0:
RCS file: /project/slime/cvsroot/slime/slime.el,v Working file: slime.el head: 1.762 symbolic names: SLIME-2-0: 1.618 FAIRLY-STABLE: 1.615
Does this mean that FAIRLY-STABLE is no longer intended to be used?
If FAIRLY-STABLE is to be used at all, I think it ought to be no older than the current release. Otherwise, maybe the tag ought to be removed.
- Harald
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).
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 07:26:34PM +0100, Marco Baringer wrote:
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
I'd also like to voice my support for more official Slime releases - I've been using Slime 2.0 for a while and I'd love to see some of the recent work, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable upgrading to a release.
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.
2.0 -> 2.1 might create problems for me, but those problems are more likely to be caused by changes that are meant to be there, and hopefully would be indicated in the release notes. HEAD is so dynamic, and I've seen references on the list to things that are "currently broken in CVS". When you download a point release, you know that as far as the authors know, everything works.
Also, I've had problems finding versions of sbcl, Slime, and clsql that all play well with each other and my code; it's easier when I can nail down a definite version number instead of trying to deal with a moving target.
I know I'm on a devel list talking about an end-user issue, but frequent releases would enable me and other "frequent user, rare contributers" to stay more current with the latest code. I would feel more inclined to investigate problems and submit patches if I knew I was working on something that was stable, but close to HEAD.
-A
-
Alan Caulkins -
Fred Gilham -
Harald Hanche-Olsen -
Marco Baringer -
Timofei Shatrov