Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

[Robert Goldman]

OK, as I said, sorry about the delay.  Anton, in place of Fare's #3 
below, will you please just test what's in the 
`syntax-control-based-on-standard-syntax` branch?  The comparison 
between 2 and 3 will tell us to what extent it's an issue to lock in 
standard syntax instead of whatever happens to be the current readtable 
when ASDF is loaded.

Thanks!
r

On 13 Feb 2018, at 22:36, Robert P. Goldman wrote:

I'll get you a branch with the other setting for the syntax control, 
so you can just test with that instead of having to modify anything 
yourself. I'll get it pushed sometime tomorrow.

Sorry for the delay.

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 13, 2018, at 20:15, Anton Vodonosov <avodono...@yandex.ru> 
wrote:

Faré, hello.

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.

commit 2a5bc3bece8f97fdf64dc73a4e0544a55ae38f9d
Author: Robert P. Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net>
Date:   Tue Jan 16 16:20:15 2018 -0600

   Bump version to 3.3.1.3



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. 3.3.1.3, 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
read-only.

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
3.3.1.3).

https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/blob/syntax-control/doc/syntax-control.md
https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/merge_requests/86
http://blog.quicklisp.org/2018/01/build-failures-with-asdf-331.html

—♯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.