Re: why does ASDF ask to please only define system/test?
sorry Stas, but i just had to dishonestly (?) cut your mail... :) with the hope that it will incite some reflection: > I specifically don't update cl-ppcre.asd [...] > > [...] and all the users can do is just to suck it up. FTR, there's an open PR with discussion: https://github.com/edicl/cl-ppcre/pull/30 i understand that "it was him who made the first change!", and "everything would still be fine if he doesn't make a change!"... but i'm not sure it's reasonable to expect this kind of conservatism in a collaborative space. old ASDF was a piece of software that wasn't designed for the tasks it is used for today (as in its API, let alone its implementation), and that was causing a lot of headache to "the users" you seem to be defending above. i don't have a strong opinion about this specific warning. to be honest, if i was the ASDF maintainer, it would be fine for me if the warning was off by default, and i would only turn it on in my own CI to send out the PR's and/or warnings to the relevant maintainers, and then let old and/or conservative libs continue to misbehave as they did with the old ASDF. but it's quite disheartening to see all the trash-talk against the refactored ASDF. i may be just one user, but the cleanup of ASDF helped me tremendously! maybe i was using more deps than usual (~100), and had to deal with live systems and whatnot that most CL users don't do...? but prior to the ASDF cleanup i had wasted countless hours hunting build-related bugs only to realize that there wasn't any bug (in my code), and by getting used to mindlessly rebuilding from scratch *any time* something strange happened. conservatism, and the general hostility, has always troubled me in the CL community, but i don't have a dog in this fight currently, or maybe even anymore, so i better cut the talk... good luck resolving whatever needs to be resolved for a better tomorrow! -- • attila lendvai • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 -- “The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished…. The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be.” — Lao Tzu (sixth century BC)
Re: why does ASDF ask to please only define system/test?
> 1- if you wanted to find a system not properly named, you had to make > sure to have read the relevant .asd file beforehand. For subsystems that's a perfectly reasonable case. > 2- if someone defined two systems with the same name in two different > files, then ASDF 2.014 could loop infinitely, and even 2.016 or later > might survive but behave in unstable way depending on how changes may > cause one system to be loaded instead of the other, then reloaded, > etc. If that were bugs which were fixable, then bringing up old ASDF releases doesn't make a compelling argument for prohibiting behavior. > ASDF is still backward-compatible. You can hush the warning if you > want—though it importantly tells you which systems could use a new > maintainer. That is a very unfair statement. I'm not even sure how to comment it. I'll only note that not willing to change a code without a good reason (because issueing this warning is a fad) is conservative in a good sense of this word. -- Daniel
Re: why does ASDF ask to please only define system/test?
> What great functionality are we getting for this? you can find and load a system without pre-processing every .asd file available. > and have worked perfectly well without following the new convention? was it, though? it took multiple seconds to read and process every .asd on my system before this change. -- • attila lendvai • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 -- “In a democracy, mass opinion creates power. Power diverts funds to the manufacturers of opinion, who manufacture more, etc. […] This feedback loop generates a playing field on which the most competitive ideas are not those which best correspond to reality, but those which produce the strongest feedback.” — Mencius Moldbug
Re: why does ASDF ask to please only define system/test?
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:09 PM Mark H. David wrote: > It seems that any system Y associated with a name X must have its name be of > the form X/Y. For example, when you build "cl-ppcre", you get this warning: > > Please only define "cl-ppcre" and secondary systems with a name starting with > "cl-ppcre/" (e.g. "cl-ppcre/test") in that file. > > I've seen this complaint for quite a few systems already. What's the need for > this, and is it really worth nagging users of all these systems that have > existed in many cases for years and have worked perfectly well without > following the new convention? What great functionality are we getting for > this? > "Worked perfectly well", except that 1- if you wanted to find a system not properly named, you had to make sure to have read the relevant .asd file beforehand. 2- if someone defined two systems with the same name in two different files, then ASDF 2.014 could loop infinitely, and even 2.016 or later might survive but behave in unstable way depending on how changes may cause one system to be loaded instead of the other, then reloaded, etc. With ASDF 2.27 (ASDF 3 pre-release), a solution was offered to define multiple systems in one .asd file in a safe way, and the old way was deprecated ever since, though a warning has only been issued since ASDF 3.2.0. ASDF is still backward-compatible. You can hush the warning if you want—though it importantly tells you which systems could use a new maintainer. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• http://fare.tunes.org A true intellectual is a man who, after reading a book and being convinced by its arguments, will shoot someone or, more likely, order someone shot. — John McCarthy
why does ASDF ask to please only define system/test?
It seems that any system Y associated with a name X must have its name be of the form X/Y. For example, when you build "cl-ppcre", you get this warning: Please only define "cl-ppcre" and secondary systems with a name starting with "cl-ppcre/" (e.g. "cl-ppcre/test") in that file. I've seen this complaint for quite a few systems already. What's the need for this, and is it really worth nagging users of all these systems that have existed in many cases for years and have worked perfectly well without following the new convention? What great functionality are we getting for this? Thanks, -Mark
Re: why does ASDF ask to please only define system/test?
I specifically don't update cl-ppcre.asd, so that these messages annoy as many people as possible and they complain to ASDF. cl-ppcre/test works perfectly fine, nobody calls find-system on it, it's only ever used via (asdf:test-system :cl-ppcre), which still works. ASDF is an entrenched monopoly, there's no competition and you can't just choose some other system to use. So it can change its behavior with every release and all the users can do is just to suck it up. On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Mark H. David wrote: > It seems that any system Y associated with a name X must have its name be > of the form X/Y. For example, when you build "cl-ppcre", you get this > warning: > > Please only define "cl-ppcre" and secondary systems with a name starting > with "cl-ppcre/" (e.g. "cl-ppcre/test") in that file. > > I've seen this complaint for quite a few systems already. What's the need > for this, and is it really worth nagging users of all these systems that > have existed in many cases for years and have worked perfectly well without > following the new convention? What great functionality are we getting for > this? > > Thanks, > -Mark > >
Re: why does ASDF ask to please only define system/test?
Thanks, Attila. I must say that as the remaining maintainer, this kind of complaining doesn't make me excited about doing my ASDF chores. This warning won't go away on my watch. Fare's change to support "slashy" systems is an elegant way to handle subsystems. I'm sorry that some people used hyphens for subsystems, and some for just word separation, but sometimes in the interests of clarity someone loses. Eventually I will just hack in a restart that muffles this warning specifically for cl-ppcre, and then we will all have to find something else to be pissed off about But right now I'm mostly working in Python, where no one's being an ingrate, so I have better things to do with my time. Sent from my iPad > On Dec 11, 2018, at 13:04, Attila Lendvai wrote: > > sorry Stas, but i just had to dishonestly (?) cut your mail... :) with > the hope that it will incite some reflection: > > >> I specifically don't update cl-ppcre.asd [...] >> >> [...] and all the users can do is just to suck it up. > > > FTR, there's an open PR with discussion: > https://github.com/edicl/cl-ppcre/pull/30 > > i understand that "it was him who made the first change!", and > "everything would still be fine if he doesn't make a change!"... but > i'm not sure it's reasonable to expect this kind of conservatism in a > collaborative space. old ASDF was a piece of software that wasn't > designed for the tasks it is used for today (as in its API, let alone > its implementation), and that was causing a lot of headache to "the > users" you seem to be defending above. > > i don't have a strong opinion about this specific warning. to be > honest, if i was the ASDF maintainer, it would be fine for me if the > warning was off by default, and i would only turn it on in my own CI > to send out the PR's and/or warnings to the relevant maintainers, and > then let old and/or conservative libs continue to misbehave as they > did with the old ASDF. > > but it's quite disheartening to see all the trash-talk against the > refactored ASDF. i may be just one user, but the cleanup of ASDF > helped me tremendously! maybe i was using more deps than usual (~100), > and had to deal with live systems and whatnot that most CL users don't > do...? but prior to the ASDF cleanup i had wasted countless hours > hunting build-related bugs only to realize that there wasn't any bug > (in my code), and by getting used to mindlessly rebuilding from > scratch *any time* something strange happened. > > conservatism, and the general hostility, has always troubled me in the > CL community, but i don't have a dog in this fight currently, or maybe > even anymore, so i better cut the talk... > > good luck resolving whatever needs to be resolved for a better > tomorrow! > > -- > • attila lendvai > • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 > -- > “The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, > the more the people are impoverished…. The more that laws and > regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there > will be.” > — Lao Tzu (sixth century BC) >
