3.1.6

[Robert Goldman]

On 9/22/15 Sep 22 -2:18 PM, Faré wrote:
>>> : Faré
>>> I think the code is ready for 3.1.6.
>>>
>>> I see one regression: logical pathnames on CLISP, that don't play well
>>> with the newly used temporary file strategy. I propose we punt on that
>>> test and file a bug against CLISP. Maybe some day CLISP will have new
>>> maintainers who'll fix it. Anyone who uses logical pathnames DESERVES
>>> to lose.
>>>
> 
>> :Robert
>> That sounds great.  Would you mind filing a launchpad bug for this, if
>> there isn't one already, and we can make that the first for 3.1.7....
>>
>> There'll be no action on my end tomorrow or the next day because of the
>> holiday and a delivery deadline the following day.  I'll try to get to
>> releasing after that.
>>
> 
> I filed these:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1498629
> https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/bugs/677/
> 
> I will mark the test as a known failure on clisp, if you want. I don't
> think it should block the release.

That sounds right. Is there an easy way to find all the tests we
disable?  Is that something you added with this notion of known failure?

Cheers,
r