The tests on 3.1.0.94 have completed. No regressions detected, here is the report: http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/asdf/asdf-diff-37.html
The only failure is teepeedee2, which fails because of its own problem - it includes in its source code libraries like babel, incompatible with babel from quicklisp. The lisps tested: abcl-1.2.0-fasl42-linux-x86 abcl-1.2.1-fasl42-linux-x86 ccl-1.9-f96-linux-x86 clisp-2.49-unix-x86 cmu-snapshot-2014-01__20e_unicode_-linux-x86 ecl-13.5.1-unknown-linux-i686-bytecode ecl-13.5.1-unknown-linux-i686-lisp-to-c sbcl-1.1.11-linux-x86 I am now preparing to test the patch. Fare, you say on the lates SBCL, therefore I have build sbcl-1.1.16. Will test on it. Best regards, - Anton 12.03.2014, 05:48, "Faré" <fah...@gmail.com>: > Dear Anton, > > can you (1) run cl-test-grid on all implementations with 3.1.0.94, our > release candidate? > > can you run the cl-test-grid on at least SBCL with the latest ASDF and > the attached patch? > > In writing my article "ASDF3, or Why Lisp is Now an Acceptable > Scripting Language", one of the limitations I list is the mess of > uncontrollable syntax. > > This would fix it... but might break dirty files that side-effect the > current syntax > without first creating and using a new readtable. Breaking these files > is actually desired, but we need to check how large is the issue > before we do it (if we do). > > I figure that, like any other potentially disruptive change, it is > best done just before a release that defines a new features, in this > case, #+asdf3.1 > > Of course, I won't commit any such thing to master without maintainer > approval. > > —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org > Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. > — Ernst Haeckel
