From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2010-05-24 08:27:19
|
Hi, Now that most of the PPC excitement has made it, and now that I feel approximately competent to operate delicate machinery once more, could we please treat the CVS tree frozen to innovative new features, while still permeable to contrib enhancements and bug fixes, with the aim to release sbcl-1.0.39 at the weekend? Thanks, Christophe |
From: Faré <fa...@gm...> - 2010-05-24 15:08:48
|
Would ASDF2 count as a contrib enhancement? Is it OK to commit it before 1.0.39? Right after 1.0.39? It would be nice if SBCL 1.0.39 came with ASDF2. If that helps, I'm even tempted to rename ASDF 1.728 as ASDF 2.000. I haven't had any negative feedback about ASDF for some time (and it's all been addressed). Using it at ITA to compile a bunch of code. [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] A tautology is a thing which is tautological. On 24 May 2010 04:27, Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> wrote: > Hi, > > Now that most of the PPC excitement has made it, and now that I feel > approximately competent to operate delicate machinery once more, could > we please treat the CVS tree frozen to innovative new features, while > still permeable to contrib enhancements and bug fixes, with the aim to > release sbcl-1.0.39 at the weekend? > > Thanks, > > Christophe |
From: Martin C. <cra...@co...> - 2010-05-26 15:14:59
|
Christophe Rhodes wrote on Mon, May 24, 2010 at 09:27:11AM +0100: > Hi, > > Now that most of the PPC excitement has made it, and now that I feel > approximately competent to operate delicate machinery once more, could > we please treat the CVS tree frozen to innovative new features, while > still permeable to contrib enhancements and bug fixes, with the aim to > release sbcl-1.0.39 at the weekend? Tree looks happy from my end. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cra...@co...> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ FreeBSD - where you want to go, today. http://www.freebsd.org/ |
From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2010-05-30 15:17:17
|
Faré <fa...@gm...> writes: > Would ASDF2 count as a contrib enhancement? Is it OK to commit it > before 1.0.39? Right after 1.0.39? (Not before 1.0.39, but that's obvious now :-) In what ways is asdf2 backwards-incompatible with asdf as currently shipped? Are there still hooks or similar for sbcl to be able to build and ship loadable contribs without the user being able to shoot themselves in the foot too easily? (For example, one usual problem is/was an asdf-binary-locations configuration which wanted to change the output locations of sbcl contrib fasls). Cheers, Christophe |
From: Faré <fa...@gm...> - 2010-05-30 15:56:55
|
On 30 May 2010 17:17, Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> wrote: > Faré <fa...@gm...> writes: > >> Would ASDF2 count as a contrib enhancement? Is it OK to commit it >> before 1.0.39? Right after 1.0.39? > > (Not before 1.0.39, but that's obvious now :-) In what ways is asdf2 > backwards-incompatible with asdf as currently shipped? Are there still > hooks or similar for sbcl to be able to build and ship loadable contribs > without the user being able to shoot themselves in the foot too easily? > > (For example, one usual problem is/was an asdf-binary-locations > configuration which wanted to change the output locations of sbcl > contrib fasls). > Yes, it is too late for 1.0.39 indeed. I intend to rename 1.728 to 2.000 tomorrow and hope it can make it to 1.0.39.small_integer. ASDF 2 *should* be fully backwards compatible with ASDF 1 in all the features actually used by .asd files in the wild, and so far there haven't been any known incompatibility that we haven't addressed. But I admit I haven't tried *all* said files, just a lot of them. Others have tried a whole lot of them, automatically, and haven't submitted a bug report in a month - but I admit I didn't dig much into that. ABCL, CCL, CMUCL and ECL have included recentish versions of ASDF in the master branches of their source trees, without unaddressed complaint so far. The SBCL REQUIRE hook is present, and now also works on ECL, CCL, ABCL. Where ASDF 2 is incompatible is that: * it defines behavior in cases that used to be non-portable (notably allowing strings as portable hierarchical pathnames, and handling pathname merging in a portable way, too). * it ships with asdsf output translations included and enabled by defaults (the successor to asdf binary locations) -- however, it arranges to leave things under SBCL_HOME invariant no matter what. Some hack may or may not be necessary while compiling the contribs themselves: (exporting SBCL_HOME=... or ASDF_OUTPUT_TRANSLATION="(:output-translations :disable-cache :inherit-configuration)" * by default, the *central-registry* (still supported) is empty, predefined search paths being supplied as part of the default and wrapping values for the source-registry. This shouldn't affect anyone. There is, however, one current slight performance regression on SBCL in certain cases: the default value of the source-registry in ASDF 2 includes recursing through /usr/share/common-lisp/source which if you have a lot of files there and are using SBCL can take a few noticeable seconds when ASDF first scans these directories. I think it's a SBCL performance bug wrt DIRECTORY doing too much pathname/truename normalization and namestringation, especially since other Lisp implementations seem to be much less slow by an order of magnitude at least. But I still think it's OK, since: * things are fast if the directories are empty. * you can override the default source-registry and remove those directories if you want to skip this scanning. * a few seconds at startup is not THAT annoying, especially when compilation takes minutes. * I'd rather the performance bug be fixed in SBCL than in ASDF. Note: SBCL is my main testing platform for ASDF. I also run regressions on CCL, CLISP, ECL, Allegro, before every release. [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] The worst thing about totalitarian regimes is not that they make people poor, miserable and unfree — it's that they corrupt people's souls, and turning everyone into a double-thinking, double-speaking liar for the sake of survival. |