New version of ASDF pushed

[Faré]

>> While I think we should indeed soon release 3.2, I believe that it is
>> not so urgent that it can't wait for a few more useful changes,
>> especially since we do provide backward compatibility functions for
>> the old API. So I propose we release a 3.1.5 for now, and do a few
>> more changes before we actually cut a 3.2.
>
> I wasn't clear: I don't mean that we need to do a 3.2 release at this
> very moment, just that these changes are not fully compatible, so are
> worthy of a "greater than patch level" release.
>
Well, we do provide a backward compatible API;
but it's true that the behavior on Windows has slightly changed.

On the other hand, we have accumulated enough bug fixes and features since
last October, including support for a new implementation (clasp)
to warrant a release soon. Release numbers are not a scarce resource,
so if you believe this requires a 3.2 release now, that just means that
the further changes I'd like will have to be for a 3.3 release.

> On the other hand, maybe we need to have 3.2.0.1 be the next thing we
> push, and call it a release candidate. It may be that the release will
> have to be 3.2.1, but I could live with that.
>
That's how we did the 3.1 release: pre-releases as 3.1.0.x,
and release as 3.1.1. It seems to have worked out well —
well except for immediately followeing it with a 3.1.2 for a bug fix :-(.

> What do firm believers in semantic versioning do about this?  Just
> always have their release be x.y.z when they want x.y, so that they can
> have a release candidate?  Or do they do something like x.y.rcz?  That
> would require a change to VERSION-SATISFIES...
>
We could specially parse rc as "-1", "beta" as "-2", "alpha" as -3, etc,
but that sounds like dubious over-engineering to me.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Director is a misnomer. You're a hoper. You put all these people together and
you hope it all works out.  — Frank Oz, director of "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels"