<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Robert Goldman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rpgoldman@sift.info">rpgoldman@sift.info</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
On 9/12/10 Sep 12 -11:48 AM, Vsevolod Dyomkin wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
<br>
Some random comments....<br>
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
> I have spent some time this year familiarizing myself with ASDF, and<br>
> afterwards I think, that it's a great build-tool (possibly, the best one<br>
> around, actually), which has a lot of hidden potential. So I'd be<br>
> willing to help as the maintainer or one of the maintainers.<br>
><br>
</div>....<br>
<div class="im">><br>
> As a Release manager I'd do the following:<br>
> - establish a regular release cycle (bi-monthly), transition to follow<br>
> the Rational version policy<br>
<br>
</div>Three points with respect to this:<br>
<br>
1. We should probably have a definition of "rational version policy,"<br>
at least by citation.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><a href="http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/7">http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/7</a></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
2. If the rational version policy is the numbering scheme I found by<br>
googling, I don't believe it is compatible with asdf:version-satisfies.<br>
I would suggest we avoid adopting a policy that doesn't meet that<br>
constraint.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Last time I looked, version-satisfies quite-happily handled exact versions, like "1.2.3", which also comply with the "rational" policy. At the same time, current versions, like 2.103 are actually 2.1.3 in disguise, which is a little annoying. Yet, the biggest benefit of the rational policy (or at least some policy) is that it's predictable.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
3. Is this bi-monthly release policy wrt ASDF 3? In my fondest dreams<br>
ASDF2 is getting stable and the ASDF 2 release cycle should be "very<br>
rarely, never in the limit." I say this not just because I am looking<br>
forward to ASDF 2 being done, but also because ASDF is critically<br>
foundational to the entire open source CL community. In order for<br>
members of this community to be able to share work, ASDF's API needs to<br>
be very, very stable (see the paper Faré and I wrote about ASDF 2<br>
development for a more thorough presentation of the need for stability).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Rarely a release should break backwards compatibility. But from what I see now, there's quite a lot of fixes to ASDF (at least a couple each month), and I don't forsee the change to such situation. </div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> - finish creating a comprehensive test-suite, and organize some<br>
> automatic testing process<br>
<br>
</div>This would be very good. BTW, I have just discovered that there are at<br>
least three different ways to start CCL, and only one of them is<br>
currently exercised by our test suite.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> - move development to github, where there is some rather<br>
> convenient infrastructure, like issue tracking (leaving a mirror on<br>
</div>> <a href="http://common-lisp.net" target="_blank">common-lisp.net</a> <<a href="http://common-lisp.net" target="_blank">http://common-lisp.net</a>>)<br>
<br>
Is there some reason that <a href="http://common-lisp.net" target="_blank">common-lisp.net</a> + launchpad is unsatisfactory?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's much less integrated and more clumsy (I filed several bugs through launchpad myself and don't like the experience). It seems, that github is a much friendlier place for that, and it is developing pretty fast. Yet, I don't think, that it is critical, so if other contributors would like to stay with the current variant, I don't object.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> - work on improving documentation (also I'm currently doing a series of<br>
> articles about ASDF in Russian in my blog<br>
> <a href="http://lisp-univ-etc.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://lisp-univ-etc.blogspot.com</a>, that I'm also going to translate to<br>
> English eventually)<br>
> - continue work on separating ASDF itself and some support subsystems<br>
> - establish some basic contribution guidelines<br>
> - answer questions in the mailing list<br>
> - contribute to bug-fixing<br>
<br>
</div>This sounds great.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<font color="#888888">Robert<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
asdf-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:asdf-devel@common-lisp.net">asdf-devel@common-lisp.net</a><br>
<a href="http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel" target="_blank">http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>