Sorry for replying so long - I'm almost paralyzed by too many things I need to
deal with currently.
I've started tests for the following commit. Will follow-up with the results.
Author: Robert P. Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net>
Date: Tue Jan 16 16:20:15 2018 -0600
Bump version to 184.108.40.206
02.02.2018, 23:06, "Faré" <fah...@gmail.com>:
> Dear Anton,
> can you run the below tests, in order or priority?
> 1- Can you test what is currently in master, a.k.a. 220.127.116.11, as a
> release candidate for 3.3.2? It has been too long since 3.3.1 was
> released with several bugs that have impacted Quicklisp users.
> 2- Can you test what is currently in the syntax-control branch as a
> release candidate for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0? We want to merge syntax control,
> but it's a significant enough change that we don't want it at the same
> time as the bug fixes. Also...
> 3- Can you test what is currently in the syntax-control branch as a
> release candidate for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0, but with the following addition
> just after you load asdf but before you start using it: (defparameter
> uiop:*shared-readtable* (copy-readtable nil)) ? Indeed, we want to see
> what breaks if we disable extensions implementation-specific reader
> extensions. Test most important on CCL. I don't expect much breakage
> on other implementations, but it may exist, too.
> 4- While you're at it, can you also run the test, at least on sbcl,
> with (defparameter uiop:*shared-readtable* uiop:*standard-readtable*))
> ? This will detect what breaks when we make the default readtable
> The thing is, we really want to have this syntax control, but we also
> want to preserve backward compatibility, and we can't make asdf
> stricter until every client is fixed (famous last word; of course we
> failed at exactly that in 3.3.1 — we could build correctly, but would
> also spuriously rebuild if secondary systems were misnamed; fixed in
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
> A friend once asked me if I had ever considered terrorism as a means for
> political change. I replied that yes, I had considered it... and rejected it.
> Because it only causes change for the worse.
> Killing innocent people does not promote a culture of peaceful interaction.