On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Paul Khuong <pvk@...> wrote:
> Christophe Rhodes wrote:
>> [ I don't have a particularly strong feeling about messages, though I
>> myself do not plan to act to remove any messages on platforms I don't
>> use. However... ]
> Same, but with an emphasis on *remove*.
>> Gabriel Dos Reis<gdr@...> writes:
>>> Remember that despite the failing testsuites, these users are still
>>> *using* SBCL and they find it useful -- except the banner. If they
>>> weren't using it, they wouldn't be reporting the annoyance in the
>>> first place.
>> The annoyance, historically, has served two purposes: one, to provide an
>> unmistakable warning that things might not be as stable as they might be
>> on this particular platform; two, as a mechanism to force users who are
>> annoyed by the message to rebuild the system, which provides a minimum
>> of quality assurance on the platform they are going to be developing
>> on. While the first purpose is perhaps less appropriate given David's
>> feeling that there was now nothing fundamentally wrong about the port
>> (even if the details aren't quite there yet), the second purpose is
>> still valid: while people aren't reporting (and, ideally, fixing) test
>> suite problems, a mechanism to encourage users into the thought process
>> of maintainers is still justifiable.
> I think it's important to remember the kind of issues that we had when
> we initially released versions with the CATS message: the initial thread
> on the win32 port would sometimes return to the C runtime, something
> that should never happen. I don't remember anyone reporting that they've
> seen the "CATS ARE NICE." message in a long while, and David's more
> informed opinion points in the same direction.
> I also understand that the Windows ports seem particularly weak: their
> threads are untrustworthy, but there's no way to disable threads either,
> and the situation is worsened by the fact that few people think of
> Windows/x86oids as niche platforms.
> It seems to me the discussion between supporters and opponents of the
> cats "warning" is running on two parallel tracks: some would like a
> warning to remain, while others would prefer the "Kitten of Death"
> message, in all its whimsicality, opacity and compulsoriness to go away.
> What do you think of:
> 1. removing the cat messages;
> 2. replacing the "CATS ARE NICE." lossage with a more informative string;
> 3. adding a warning in print_banner to the effect that the Windows port
> may be useful, but is definitely fragile -- one might even add an
> explicit ask for involvement in development/testing;
> 4. considering a similar note on other platforms that are the object of
> less maintenance and testing?
> In terms of visibility, the only difference between that proposal and
> the current situation is that the banner can be disabled with
> --noinform. I'm with Christophe, in that I don't think it's ideal to
> have a deluge of new users expecting a solid product when we don't have
> the developers (or even development machines) to respond to bug reports.
> However, if a project like OpenAxiom ever releases cores with
> --noinform, I hope it's clear that the onus will be on them to primarily
> support their end users, even if they hit issues in our code. I would
> certainly wonder how an inexperienced end-user goes from running Open
> Axiom to reporting a bug to SBCL, in the absence of the bootup banner
> (and its associated warning).
> Paul Khuong
This proposal makes the most sense to me, and reminds me of why
I decided to make SBCL the default Lisp system of OpenAxiom :-)