Thanks for sending that. Had a quick look. One nice thing is that there's a very limited number of regressions. I'll look at those when I can.

Faré: I didn't believe it was possible to downgrade ASDF, but we see this here in a couple of cases for ECL. ECL is trying to reload "prebuilt-asdf". I think we can ignore these failures on ECL. They just should not do that, and it's not really and ASDF test failure if they load a conflicting version of ASDF, breaking our upgrade method.

clisp I refuse to care about, since it's effectively abandonware, unless you are willing to build from source, which I am not. Certainly clisp 2.49 is abandonware.k

That leaves only the SBCL and ACL failures for us to worry about.... I'm pretty busy this weekend, but I will have a look.


On 15 Feb 2018, at 22:11, Anton Vodonosov wrote:

Robert, what delay are you apologizing for? I'm aware only of the delay from my side. :)

The results for ASDF <>

Lisps tested so far:








Best regards,

\- Anton

14.02.2018, 22:02, "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.


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 <[](<>)> 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 <[](<>)>
 Date: Tue Jan 16 16:20:15 2018 -0600

 Bump version to

02.02.2018, 23:06, "Faré" <[](<>)>:

Dear Anton,

 can you run the below tests, in order or priority?

 1- Can you test what is currently in master, a.k.a., 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• [](<>) 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.

Reply via email to