[asdf-devel] ASDF 2 confusion

[Faré]

I agree that ASDF 1.634 has reached the state of an ASDF 2 candidate,
at least codewise if not documentationwise.

If no one objects, I'm OK with enabling #+asdf2.

Want me to do it, or can you do it and release?

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
Majority, n.:
        That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.


On 13 March 2010 16:55, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
> On 3/13/10 Mar 13 -11:35 AM, Robert Goldman wrote:
>> The member of *features* that indicates new asdf is
>>
>> :asdf2
>>
>> This is probably the source of the confusion.
>>
>> Probably need a section of the manual on this.
>
> I see that :asdf2 has been removed from *features*, according to the
> manual, until ASDF reaches 2.0 official release.
>
> I would like to appeal this decision; I think it's a mistake.
>
> The current 1.6xx releases of ASDF are effectively release candidates
> for ASDF 2.0.
>
> While we are in testing, we need to be able to validate that ASDF2 and
> ASDF "classic" are compatible.
>
> In particular, we need to start writing ASDF files with code like
>
> #+asdf2
> ....
> #-asdf2
> <classic asdf compatibility code>
>
> For example, I would like to test with
>
> #+asdf2
> <asdf-output-translations code here>
> #-asdf2
> <asdf-binary-locations code here>
>
> Removing :asdf2 makes this kind of testing impossible, and indeed makes
> it impossible pre-release to check expedients for backward compatibility
> of any kind.
>
> I would like to revise the manual to say basically what I have said
> above and restore the
>
> (pushnew :asdf2 *features*)
>
> to asdf.lisp.
>
> will this upset anyone?
>
> thanks,
> r
>