Andreas Davour wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2015, Faré wrote:
[snip]
My SBCL is at 3.1.3. I think 3.1.4 is solid enough that it should be
updated there.
I've bugged SBCL hackers many time since last october, to no avail.
But remember hwo it looks like from the outside, though.
You are
You are changing the third number, which will look like a patch to a
minor revision. They probably wont bother with updating (if it's any
amount of work) unless they see 3.2 or 4.0 is my guess. That's how I
would think.
Actually, if I was them, I wouldn't bother updating until I saw 3.2.1!
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Robert P. Goldman rpgold...@sift.net wrote:
If someone would suggest a list of keywords for the licenses, we could
certainly incorporate that in some fashion. But it would complicate any
introspection code. Presumably that code would be taking the metadata
Dear Robert,
I believe the plan to enable style-warnings for those using deprecated
functions or missing useful metadata is great, but
1- justifies moving to version 3.2.
2- requires testing with a 3.2.0.x alpha release series that already
have a version = 3.2, so no magic problem occurs due to
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
Hi,
In various occasions I have seen that you plan to make the metadata
arbitrary string or even general values. While I think that's okay, to
provide lists of suggested values so that use of the values gets easier
and if most people use the suggested values, the value
