On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:05:55AM -0500, Zach Beane wrote: > Marijn Haverbeke <mari...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Yes, recently someone submitted a patch that broke a bunch of things. > > It has already been reverted in the git repository, but I guess > > quicklisp picked up the broken version (since it seems to assume that > > repositories are never broken). Update from git, I guess.
Urghs, I just created some (Debian) package building scripts that rely on Quicklisp (i.e. that install a temporsry quicklisp to build standalone binaries). The idea that quicklisp might deploy some arbitrary checkout makes me frown. > I don't assume that repositories are never broken. I don't have a good > system in place to do pre-release testing beyond "Does it build?" I'd > like to do more thorough testing, but setting up the infrastructure for > it takes time. It might be a good idea to offer the upstream programmers a way to provide a branch/tag to mark quicklisp ready versions of the code (I personally use git-flow and that has a branch named 'release'). Cheers, Ralf Mattes
