Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

[Faré]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.net> wrote:
> Thank you very much, Anton.  Question: is the inner-conditional-test failure
> on SBCL 1.3.21 not a regression?  I just loaded this system and tested it on
> my mac with SBCL 1.4.3, and it worked fine, so I'm inclined to treat this is
> not a problem.  Also, the inner conditional system has a readme saying it's
> not maintained and please not to use it.
>
> What about reversi on CCL 1.9?  I guess if I understand correctly, reversi
> must have passed on CCL 1.10 and 1.11, so probably I shouldn't worry about
> this, either.
>
> Fare, what do you think?  Should I release this version, or wait a little
> longer and see if we can get the syntax fix in, as well?
>
I think we're good for 3.3.2. There are often a few non-reproducible
failures and failures on older implementations, and I see nothing
worrisome there, even though I haven't tried to rerun the crashes and
timeouts in case their work the second time around.

> Maybe I should release this as 3.3.2, and make the syntax-fixed version of
> ASDF be 3.4, since (for some people) it might be a bigger change.
>
Yes, that might be prudent.

When you make a 3.4, be sure to test cl-test-grid with a branch that
includes the version update, because that's how you'll find problems
with deprecated functions (for which you should make sure to bump the
expiration date properly).

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Whatever is worth doing at all is worth doing well.  — Chesterfield