Thank you very much, Anton. Question: is the inner-conditional-test
failure on SBCL 1.3.21 not a regression? I just loaded this system and
tested it on my mac with SBCL 1.4.3, and it worked fine, so I'm inclined
to treat this is not a problem. Also, the inner conditional system has
a readme saying it's not maintained and please not to use it.
What about reversi on CCL 1.9? I guess if I understand correctly,
reversi must have passed on CCL 1.10 and 1.11, so probably I shouldn't
worry about this, either.
Fare, what do you think? Should I release this version, or wait a
little longer and see if we can get the syntax fix in, as well?
Maybe I should release this as 3.3.2, and make the syntax-fixed version
of ASDF be 3.4, since (for some people) it might be a bigger change.
Best,
r
On 17 Mar 2018, at 7:51, Anton Vodonosov wrote:
Results for these lisps:
abcl-1.5.0-fasl43-linux-x86
ccl-1.10-r16196-f96-linux-x86
ccl-1.11-r16635-f96-linux-x86
ccl-1.9-r15756-f96-linux-x86
clisp-2.49-unix-x86
ecl-16.1.2-unknown-linux-x86-bytecode
ecl-16.1.2-unknown-linux-x86-lisp-to-c
sbcl-1.1.16-linux-x86
sbcl-1.3.21-linux-x86
show no regressions.
ACL tests are running - needed to re-run them because licence refresh
was needed.
The report:
https://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/asdf/asdf-diff-73.html
Best regards,
- Anton
13.03.2018, 16:53, "Anton Vodonosov" <avodono...@yandex.ru>:
I've started tests for 3.3.1.7
11.03.2018, 06:11, "Faré" <fah...@gmail.com>:
Dear Anton,
can you try your test suite again against 3.3.1.7 ? I think we're
mostly ready to release 3.3.2 this time, with its many bugs fixes
(and
bug fix fixes).
Can you also try the branch made by Robert for syntax-control + a
copy
of the standard readtable as default?
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau
•Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Wir Mathematiker sind alle ein bisschen meschugge.
(We mathematicans are all a bit crazy). — Lev Landau
