21:54, 27 мая 2015 г., "Robert P. Goldman" rpgold...@sift.net:Faré wrote: OTOH, it's probably A Bad Thing if you depend on a system for something you are doing, and don't know what license it uses. Well, we haven't codified any format for :license. I suppose we could adopt the nomenclature used by
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
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
Faré wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Robert P. Goldman rpgold...@sift.net wrote:
Faré wrote:
Oh well, I'm torn. I think it's a good thing, but maybe incompatible
enough that we should release 3.1.5 now and start a 3.2.0 branch.
I don't think this counts as incompatible, since it would
OTOH, it's probably A Bad Thing if you depend on a system for something
you are doing, and don't know what license it uses.
Well, we haven't codified any format for :license. I suppose we could adopt
the nomenclature used by Debian. Except what in Lisp circles goes by
the name MIT
(as notably
Faré wrote:
OTOH, it's probably A Bad Thing if you depend on a system for something
you are doing, and don't know what license it uses.
Well, we haven't codified any format for :license. I suppose we could adopt
the nomenclature used by Debian. Except what in Lisp circles goes by
the name
On Tue, May 26, 2015, 12:20 Robert P. Goldman rpgold...@sift.net wrote:
About holding the release briefly while I negotiate with Xach about
metadata?
Xach is starting to make QL complain about systems missing AUTHOR,
DESCRIPTION, and LICENSE. I'm pushing for VERSION, as well.
I was
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Robert P. Goldman rpgold...@sift.net wrote:
Faré wrote:
Oh well, I'm torn. I think it's a good thing, but maybe incompatible
enough that we should release 3.1.5 now and start a 3.2.0 branch.
I don't think this counts as incompatible, since it would only be a
10 matches
Mail list logo
