> minimakefile will have to wait. I don't see a pressing need to merge > it. It provides no new functionality, only an experiment with using > ASDF to enable CL to be used as a scripting langauge. That's nice, but > until it *eases* my development, instead of complicating it, I don't > expect to merge this branch. The existing makefile isn't broken in a > way that the minimakefile fixes. I have already specified changes that > need to be made in this branch before it can be merged: > Actually, it now does provide some additional functionality: * make help to show all the commands, with a short documentation line for each. The old Makefile had no such thing. * all Lisp commands invoked are now specified according to a list of Lisp forms that isn't obfuscated for passing through bad Windows implementations; on error, messages are printed that work fine for reproducing the bug, with or without obfsuation.
> 1. It must provide bash completion that is *at least as* good as make does. > Done (I hope) > 2. It must have more documentation. > Done — there was about none on the old scheme, there are docstrings everywhere not. > Note that these are lower bounds. My ASDF development infrastructure is > not a place for experimentation. Experiments that provide clear benefits > *to me* are likely to be accepted. Experiments that further unrelated > goals (develop CL as a scripting environment) will not: novel CL > technology development is not my job as ASDF maintainer. > I agree. I believe the new asdf-tools replacement for the Makefile is a success at making things easier. Release scripts are now possible in a way that they weren't before. > As the delays in reviewing the syntax-control branch illustrate, I don't > have a lot of spare cycles for ASDF right now (a number of projects > entering critical state this month). So ASDF items that don't provide a > compelling benefit (bugfix or significantly easier development) are > going to be back-burnered till more attention becomes available. > > Sorry, but it's better that I restrict myself to doing what I can do > competently, rather than overextend and do a crummy job on everything. > > In general, I think this should be acceptable, because the heroic days > of fixing the big bugs in ASDF are over. We are entering a stage of > maintaining mature and successful technology. > I understand your position. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Lorsque la consigne est infâme, la désobéissance est un devoir _______________________________________________ Asdf-devel mailing list Asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
