[asdf-devel] ASDF 2 confusion

[Robert Goldman]

On 3/13/10 Mar 13 -4:56 PM, Faré wrote:
> 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?

Done.

Cheers,
r

> 
> [ 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
>>