Thank you. That's good to know....possibly all the confusion is in the postmodern stuff.
On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 16:03 -0400, Ian Eslick wrote: > I pulled a fresh copy of the current head and I found one issue: > > Mac OS X / Allegro / BDB 4.5 - no probs > Mac OS X / Allegro / CLSQL - map-index-remove failed > Mac OS X / SBCL / BDB 4.5 - no probs > Mac OS X / SBCL / CLSQL - no probs > > (I don't have a postgres test db setup at the moment) > > 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
