Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

Fri Feb 16 16:42:07 UTC 2018

Thanks for sending that.  Had a quick look.  One nice thing is that 
there's a very limited number of regressions.  I'll look at those when I 
can.

Faré: I didn't believe it was possible to downgrade ASDF, but we see 
this here in a couple of cases for ECL.  ECL is trying to reload 
"prebuilt-asdf".  I think we can ignore these failures on ECL. They just 
should not do that, and it's not really and ASDF test failure if they 
load a conflicting version of ASDF, breaking our upgrade method.

clisp I refuse to care about, since it's effectively abandonware, unless 
you are willing to build from source, which I am not.  Certainly clisp 
2.49 is abandonware.k

That leaves only the SBCL and ACL failures for us to worry about....  
I'm pretty busy this weekend, but I will have a look.

Best,
Robert

On 15 Feb 2018, at 22:11, Anton Vodonosov wrote:

> Robert, what delay are you apologizing for? I'm aware only of the 
> delay from my side. :)
>
>
>
> The results for ASDF 3.3.1.3: 
> <https://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/asdf/asdf-diff-72.html>
>
> Lisps tested so far:
>
>
>
> abcl-1.5.0-fasl43-linux-x86
>
> acl-10.0s-linux-x86
>
> ccl-1.11-r16635-f96-linux-x86
>
> clisp-2.49-unix-x86
>
> ecl-16.1.2-unknown-linux-x86-bytecode
>
> ecl-16.1.2-unknown-linux-x86-lisp-to-c
>
> sbcl-1.3.21-linux-x86
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> \- Anton
>
>
>
>
>
> 14.02.2018, 22:02, "Robert Goldman" <rpgoldman at sift.net>:
>
>> OK, as I said, sorry about the delay. Anton, in place of Fare's #3 
>> below, will you please just test what's in the 
>> `syntax-control-based-on-standard-syntax` branch? The comparison 
>> between 2 and 3 will tell us to what extent it's an issue to lock in 
>> standard syntax instead of whatever happens to be the current 
>> readtable when ASDF is loaded.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>  r
>>
>> On 13 Feb 2018, at 22:36, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
>>
>>> I'll get you a branch with the other setting for the syntax control, 
>>> so you can just test with that instead of having to modify anything 
>>> yourself. I'll get it pushed sometime tomorrow.
>>
>>  Sorry for the delay.
>>
>>  Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>> On Feb 13, 2018, at 20:15, Anton Vodonosov 
>>>> <[avodonosov at yandex.ru](<mailto:avodonosov at yandex.ru>)> wrote:
>>
>>  Faré, hello.
>>
>>  Sorry for replying so long - I'm almost paralyzed by too many things 
>> I need to deal with currently.
>>  I've started tests for the following commit. Will follow-up with the 
>> results.
>>
>>  commit 2a5bc3bece8f97fdf64dc73a4e0544a55ae38f9d
>>  Author: Robert P. Goldman 
>> <[rpgoldman at sift.net](<mailto:rpgoldman at sift.net>)>
>>  Date: Tue Jan 16 16:20:15 2018 -0600
>>
>>  Bump version to 3.3.1.3
>>
>>
>>
>>  02.02.2018, 23:06, "Faré" 
>> <[fahree at gmail.com](<mailto:fahree at gmail.com>)>:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Anton,
>>
>>  can you run the below tests, in order or priority?
>>
>>  1- Can you test what is currently in master, a.k.a. 3.3.1.3, as a
>>  release candidate for 3.3.2? It has been too long since 3.3.1 was
>>  released with several bugs that have impacted Quicklisp users.
>>
>>  2- Can you test what is currently in the syntax-control branch as a
>>  release candidate for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0? We want to merge syntax 
>> control,
>>  but it's a significant enough change that we don't want it at the 
>> same
>>  time as the bug fixes. Also...
>>
>>  3- Can you test what is currently in the syntax-control branch as a
>>  release candidate for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0, but with the following 
>> addition
>>  just after you load asdf but before you start using it: 
>> (defparameter
>>  uiop:*shared-readtable* (copy-readtable nil)) ? Indeed, we want to 
>> see
>>  what breaks if we disable extensions implementation-specific reader
>>  extensions. Test most important on CCL. I don't expect much breakage
>>  on other implementations, but it may exist, too.
>>
>>  4- While you're at it, can you also run the test, at least on sbcl,
>>  with (defparameter uiop:*shared-readtable* 
>> uiop:*standard-readtable*))
>>  ? This will detect what breaks when we make the default readtable
>>  read-only.
>>
>>  The thing is, we really want to have this syntax control, but we 
>> also
>>  want to preserve backward compatibility, and we can't make asdf
>>  stricter until every client is fixed (famous last word; of course we
>>  failed at exactly that in 3.3.1 — we could build correctly, but 
>> would
>>  also spuriously rebuild if secondary systems were misnamed; fixed in
>>  3.3.1.3).
>>
>>  <https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/blob/syntax-control/doc/syntax-control.md>
>>  <https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/merge_requests/86>
>>  <http://blog.quicklisp.org/2018/01/build-failures-with-asdf-331.html>
>>
>>  —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau 
>> •Reflection&Cybernethics• 
>> [http://fare.tunes.org](<http://fare.tunes.org/>)
>>  A friend once asked me if I had ever considered terrorism as a means 
>> for
>>  political change. I replied that yes, I had considered it... and 
>> rejected it.
>>  Because it only causes change for the worse.
>>  Killing innocent people does not promote a culture of peaceful 
>> interaction.
>>
>>