>> Because my release process (or lack thereof) sucks. > > a `release' target in the developer makefile helps. > It would. Too many manual steps right now, including doing things on several machines to check implementations that won't run under Linux amd64. Or I could have chroot's and/or emulators. Sigh. We'll see.
>> Fixed for now. > > nope. > > $ grep 013 modules/asdf/asdf.lisp > (ASDF:VERSION-SATISFIES (ASDF:ASDF-VERSION) \"2.013\")." > $ grep 014 modules/asdf/asdf.lisp > ;;; This is ASDF 2.014: Another System Definition Facility. > (asdf-version "2.014") > ;; Will be removed in a future release, e.g. 2.014. > $ > > 1. why can I see 013 there? That's an example in a docstring. It's immaterial which version is shown there. > 2. why wasn't whatever was it to be removed, removed? > Because 2.014 was an emergency release the week afterwards, rather than something that leaves time for developers to update their behavior. I notably need to talk to Attila regarding hu.dwim.asdf. Plan: in 2.015, there will be a warning. In 2.016, it will removed. Note: it was an unexported internal function. Thanks for caring, [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] When my time on earth is completed, I want to go quietly in my sleep, like my grandfather ... not screaming in terror, like his passengers. _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
