(I hope this message isn't a duplicate or otherwise messed up. I did
the infamous upgrade of sendmail from 8.11 to 8.12 this weekend, and
I'm still trying to straighten out the consequences.)
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 05:42:24PM +1000, Brian Spilsbury wrote:
> Well, given the lack of discussion, I'm inclined to proceed as I see
> fit, which will be more or less along the lines of my last post.
> If this causes inconvenience further down the track, that's too bad.
> I have things to get done, and I cannot keep on waiting for a week on
> each response.
Sorry. It isn't even that I've been too busy to reply, but I reacted
badly to the perceived tone of your previous message, throwing up my
hands and stalking away from my computer, and I never got back to it.
from your previous message:
- I am not going to write the code to make the current versions of
- sbcl/cmucl bootstrap this, someone who find this a major priority is
- welcome to do so.
Well, I certainly find this a major priority. They say "never say
never", so: if I get a lot of pressure from people I respect (or
better yet, compelling arguments from people I can understand) to
merge the patches into SBCL even though they make SBCL
unbootstrappable, then maybe. Failing that, the patches are extremely
unlikely to be accepted until bootstrappablized, whether at your hand
or someone else's.
Furthermore, since your personal style grates on my nerves (as, trying
to be fair, I suspect my style grates on yours), and since I have no
personal need for Unicode, the likelihood that your unbootstrappable
code will be cleaned up at my hand seems pretty low right now.
- I will need the unicode form to be default, and then to later produce
- code to make it efficient for the cases where extended character sets
- are not utilised. It is not workable to maintain such fundamental
- disparities for such minimal returns.
I didn't really understand this. First, when you write "I will need"
it sounds as though you're talking about stuff that you expect us to
do for you, but I can't figure out what. Second, when you say unicode
form will be "the default", do you mean what you wrote elsewhere
- what I have already produced, but with the
- character data-base files removed, and the #[!][+-]unicode options
- removed to make the unicode form default
so that if we apply your patch, SBCL will be always be compiled into a
with-Unicode form even for people who don't need or want Unicode? This
might be OK, and certainly isn't the same sort of nearly-nonnegotiable
issue as making SBCL unbootstrappable. However, you should realize
that doing things this way will probably raise the bar on the quality
(not just correctness, but size and performance as well) for your
patch to be considered for inclusion. (Maybe a lot, depending on how
many users and developers really want Unicode.)
- At some point I will require a feature freeze so that I can synchronise
- things properly.
- I will require a sequential list of patches to apply to the source to
- bring it up to the normal level, applying a single diff across the whole
- system, I suspect will not be workable, but it should be doable to apply
- the patches in sequence, and fix them as they break.
I didn't understand either of these.
The rate of change of SBCL since 0.7.0 seems unlikely to break
anyone's code, so I don't understand the need for a freeze. How much
of a freeze do you think you would require? Over how much time? Over
how much code?
When you write "I will require" do you mean "I will produce"?
William Harold Newman <william.newman@...>
Anyone who says you can have a lot of widely dispersed people hack
away on a complicated piece of code and avoid total anarchy has never
managed a software project. -- Andy Tanenbaum, quoted in
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C