> * Faré <[email protected]> [2011-03-30 17:31:44 +0000]: > >>> 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.
testing has to be manual, but releasing does not have to be. (and can include many different consistency checks)... >>> 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. immaterial, but confusing. IMO, it should either be the current version or something clearly abstract, e.g., "0.1234567". -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on CentOS release 5.5 (Final) X http://dhimmi.com http://pmw.org.il http://honestreporting.com http://ffii.org http://thereligionofpeace.com http://iris.org.il Bug free software merely has random features. _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
