OK, people, please clam down ... I suggest we putting our efforts on solving real issues but arguing. Today I heard that Faré just bought his first Mac computer, I believe he will take care of RMCL better than before.
I understand that Faré are trying to make ASDF2 perfect: supporting all available CL platforms so that other ASDF-based packages could have chances to run. From my personal view in these months, maybe ASDF2 grows too fast, as a build tool it grows even faster than other CL packages which do real world function. As a common Lisper using CL on work and maintain some CL packages, I think I just need: 1) asdf:*central-registry* works the same way as before, 2) Quicklisp works, 3) All my previous written valid .asd files won't fail. other things, I don't care. I think Faré is a very good Lisp programmer, I can see this from ASDF2 source code, I hope Faré could help us (MCL users) solving necessary issues which is caused by ASDF2 development when Faré don't have a Mac, and no doubt all MCL users will say thanks. And I think every ASDF user should want it stable than feature-rich, maybe Faré could consider this option someway in the future. Best Regards, Chun Tian (binghe) >> Your reactions to bug reports are either null, or very discouraging. >> > Which bug did you report that I didn't address? > There are archives, please show me. > >> I usually only get fixes or workarounds by people other than you. >> > I'm glad you're getting support from others. Unhappily, > you won't get any from me unless you communicate with me. > >> Instead I repeatedly hear from you that either I am doing something wrong, >> or that what I'm trying to do is deprecated, or legacy, or old-style, or >> whatever. >> > I never said anything was "deprecated". > central-registry and logical pathnames are very much supported. > I did say legacy and old-style indeed. > Which means they continue to work as they always did. > Robert Goldman and I even took pains to maintain and extend > the documentation on how to use them, to include > common usage, known pitfalls and some advanced features. > While it's not a lot of documentation, it's still more than was before. > >> Or you don't react at all (like with my _bug_ report that the documentation >> is misleading, which is the main reason why I switched from a working setup >> to a setup that doesn't work). Or like here, you react by saying that I'm >> not reporting problems properly, or not early enough, or whatever. >> > As far as I can tell, the reason your setup didn't work > is because the MCL support had bitrotten. > My excuse for that is that I never had a chance to use a Mac. > As far as I know, I fixed all the issues I am aware of > — based on binghe's bug reports. > I never had a clear bug report from you. > >> I don't get such reactions from any other library/tool maintainer! >> > My apologies. I obviously fail to communicate with you. > But communication is a two-way thing. > Maybe you can come down to my level. > >> You either support a feature, or you don't. Don't do this mixed bag of "I >> support it, but you're a loser if you use it." >> > I support central-registry and logical pathnames within my limits. > I didn't touch the legacy configuration system. > It's working, it's stable. You can keep using it as you always did before. > It takes priority over the new source-registry. > If you're using these features, though, > you're not a loser: you're an advanced user; > your curse is that you have to take responsibility for that, > because lesser people such as I are unable to do it. > You already know more about logical pathnames than I do; > I'm ready to learn from you everything you'll tell me > about how to do things right about them. > >> The main reason why I'm having problems with ASDF 2.x is because it's >> alpha-quality software at best (you're still trying to figure out some very >> basic concepts, it seems to me), yet you don't even call it beta quality, >> but instead choose to call it 2.x, push it down everybody's throats, and >> turn a whole community into alpha testers who didn't volunteer to be guinea >> pigs in the first place. >> > I called it 2.x to make it clear that there had been significant changes > since the first 1.x series, and that while compatibility is our goal, > we warn that there might be breakage in a few > formerly underspecified or non-portable corner cases, > or on platforms we don't have access to. > > I indeed am trying to "push it down everybody's throats", > in other words I aim to satisfy everyone enough that they will adopt it. > I apologize if you're experiencing trouble and encourage you > to pick whichever legacy version you're more satisfied with, > if you're experiencing issues with mine. > I certainly didn't install ASDF 2.x on your machine. > Why did you even try to upgrade? > If you needed a bug fix or new feature, then maybe it's not totally useless. > If you just wanted to test it, then I thank you for testing: > you were the very first to try ASDF 2 on RMCL. > >> I have used ASDF 1.x and it's central registry approach for years in almost >> all CL implementations available, and I have never encountered any problems >> with it. I have also used logical pathnames to some limited extent years >> ago, and my experience with those weren't even remotely as bad as with ASDF >> 2.x. When using them recently, for a few weeks they actually made something >> work that ASDF 2.x claims to support, but actually didn't really, until ASDF >> screwed it up again. >> > My only claim of support is that I will fix bugs that are reported to me. > I can't fix bugs that are not reported. > If you have an unusual setup, you have to explain > what you are doing, what is breaking, and how it is breaking. > I'm not going to remotely hack into your computer at night > to find out whether things are wrong and why. > I unhappily can't run batteries of test > on an implementation I don't have access to. > > That said, yes, it might be useful to write unit tests > for the support of logical pathnames by the source-registry. > Patches welcome. > >> I'm not sure how to proceed from here. Communicating with you and reporting >> bugs doesn't seem to buy anything. If I had the choice I would just drop >> ASDF 2.x and go back to ASDF 1.x, but this doesn't seem a viable option. Or >> is it? >> > I don't see why you believe that ASDF 1.x isn't a viable option. > Certainly, if you believe that ASDF 2.x doesn't bring anything valuable, > you should stick to ASDF 1.x. Of course, I won't be able to provide > support for it, but that shouldn't be an issue for you, > since my support seems of little value to you. > > Best regards, > > —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org > Fascists divide in two categories: the fascists and the anti-fascists > — Ennio Flaiano > > _______________________________________________ > asdf-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
