I really don't see what that buys, but if so, please make it 3.1.8 rather than 3.2.0.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016, 17:14 Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net> wrote: > On 11/27/16 Nov 27 -1:11 PM, Faré wrote: > > I asked you many times if you knew what you were doing, but I don't > > think you did wrong at any point, except maybe for not realizing you > > had changed plan. [Also, I'm a proponent of releasing more often, but > > that's a different debate.] > > > > I'd like to proceed forward. I don't any good reason to undo any of > > the current changes. > > Well, as my earlier message suggests, we don't have to undo anything: we > can simply make a release out of the state before the removal of > operation initargs. That would give everyone time to adjust. > > I think the person who cares the most is Daniel, so Daniel, what do you > say? > > > > > > If you want to keep supporting make-build and/or if Daniel wants to > > support it on the ECL side, that's possible (see my proposed > > reimplementation in comments to !34). I'm not aware of any other > > breakage. > > > > Anton, can you run cl-test-grid with ASDF master? > > > > —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• > http://fare.tunes.org > > Communism is feudality without chivalry. — Faré > > > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net> > wrote: > >> This is clearly my fault. I lost track of the plan. Going forward, I > need to get a better handle on plans -- I've been to reactive, having > discussions spread across launchpad, GitLab, IRC, and the mailing list. > >> > >> Here's one proposal: instead of reverting the recent merge, we could > cut a release off master before the merge. That would give us a less > disruptive release (at the expense of a little complexity on the release > branch). > >> > >> Would this make everyone happy? > > > > >
