On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net> wrote:
> On 10/10/15 Oct 10 -10:26 AM, Faré wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Anton Vodonosov <avodono...@yandex.ru>
>> wrote:
>>> If you are interested, this version of ASDF fails on SBCL 1.0.58:
>>>
>>> ; caught ERROR:
>>> ; READ error during COMPILE-FILE:
>>> ;
>>> ; Symbol "PRINT-BACKTRACE" not found in the SB-DEBUG package.
>>> ;
>>> ; Line: 4307, Column: 29, File-Position: 210191
>>> ;
>>> ; Stream: #<SB-SYS:FD-STREAM
>>> ; for "file /home/testgrid/quicklisp-asdf3/asdf.lisp"
>>> {ADDDA29}>
>>>
>> Apparently, the first release that include PRINT-BACKTRACE is 1.1.5
>> from February 2013.
>>
>> I'll let Robert decide whether it's OK to drop support for SBCL
>> releases older than that.
>>
>> I'd weakly vote "yes, it's OK to stop supporting things more than 2
>> years old", but that's just me.
>
> I agree. I believe that it's appropriate. I'd be willing to see us
> drop support for the 1.1.x series, for that matter. IMO it's easier to
> keep track of "1.1 is unsupported" than try to remember which monthly
> release in particular is unsupported. Agreeable policy?
>
> Question for someone more knowledgeable: is there a brief explanation of
> the difference between 1.1 and 1.2 SBCLs? What triggered the bump of
> minor version?
>
Considering that the propagation latency for ASDF itself is about 2
years, it might be a bad idea
to drop support for things that are only a bit over a year old (sbcl
1.1.18, last in the series).
That said, it's true that SBCL upgrades ASDF about every year, so that
makes more sense. Still.
I would say that 2 year old is probably a better rule of thumb.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it for himself.
— attributed to Galileo Galilei
