[cdr-discuss] CDR follow ups...

[Pascal Costanza]

Hi,

At ELS'12 in Zadar there was a brief discussion about how we could make the CDR process more active. One observation was that there is not enough follow up on CDRs. Especially two things were mentioned:

(a) It is not easy to figure out which CL implementations implement which CDRs.

(b) It is not easy to figure out which CDR is implemented in a running CL system.

About (a): I don't think the CDR website should maintain a list of implemented CDRs. This would increase the maintenance overhead of CDR, and would be detrimental to the goal of CDR being a strictly light-weight process. However, what could be done is to add a page to CLiki, for example, where volunteers could add the necessary information.

What do you guys think? Is CLiki a good place for this? There is a chance that this could get out of sync with what implementations actually do, but this should still be easier to maintain than putting such information on the CDR website…

About (b): A suggestion was that CDRs could be represented as entries in *features* (so :cdr-1, :cdr-2, :cdr-3, etc.). This would be the most general form of providing something that can be tested, because it can even be tested at compile time. Does that make sense? Should this be written up as a CDR of its own?


Pascal

--
Pascal Costanza