We should definitely find out what, if anything, is keeping the
current head from being green. However, the changes in the unstable
branch are so extensive, that our time prepping for the release are
better spent on identifying presents in that one (FYI - I only have
one or two failing tests on my end that I'll track down when I get a
chance).
I'll do a quick run of the current head and let you know what I find.
Cheers,
Ian
On Mar 16, 2008, at 3:15 PM, Robert L. Read wrote:
Dear Leslie and Ian Alex and Henrik,
I can see now that I did not apply Leslie's updated patch. I
attempted
to rollback and reapply the correct patch. Unfortunately, I was
unable
to get to a "green" state under any system. I find darcs much
harder to
work with than CVS (however, I had a great deal of experience with
CVS.)
So, unfortunately, Leslie, I cannot re-apply our patch. If you have
working code, please compute another patch directly against the
CURRENT
tip of the main development branch in the repository. I will then
apply
this and see if I can get to green.
Furthermore, in attempt to solve this problem, I restored my local
copy
to the head of the main repository, and am green only under BDB.
I'm afraid things have gotten a little out of control, although I
think
we are using proper discipline and committing things only when we are
green on the local systems that we can test on. However, I would like
to get the main repository back to a "known working" state for my
systems (SBCL, BDB, Postgres, Postmodern, X86 architecture.)
I think the best way to do this is for Leslie to get green and send
me
a diff; if I still have problems after that I may have to look into
Ian's checkins. As a last resort we can rollback patches until we get
to something working...but that is a last resort.
If I can't get things worked out after Leslie sends me the patch,
then
I may have to ask you guys to test against the head and send me your
results on your systems.
Ian wants to make a release in a few weeks, and we really need to get
back to a solid state ahead of that.
On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 12:23 +0100, Leslie P. Polzer wrote:
Dear Robert,
I posted an updated version of the patch shortly after, and it seems
you applied the obsolete one. Can you check?
I did personally have some problems...perhaps because Bordeaux
Threads
is not claiming to work on x86_64 architectures, darn it!
Hrm, I guess it should just be a thin compatibility layer for SBCL.
Does SBCL officially support threading on ia64?
So the upshot is that I am green under BDB and postmodern with your
changes, except for your test itself, which fails for me on sbcl
1.0.13
on an x86_64, apparently more because of the threading than the
reapoing.
I will look into this when we have sorted out the patch problem.
Leslie
_______________________________________________
elephant-devel site list
elephant-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel
_______________________________________________
elephant-devel site list
elephant-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel
_______________________________________________
elephant-devel site list
elephant-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel
