[missing implementations]

Erik Huelsmann ehuels at gmail.com
Sun Oct 14 18:33:39 UTC 2018

Hi Raymond,

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 7:37 PM Raymond Toy <toy.raymond at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:32 AM Daniel KochmaƄski <daniel at turtleware.eu>
> wrote:
>> Hey,
>> new website is great. There are though a few suprises:
> Yes, the new site looks really nice.

Thanks! (On behalf of Mariano who created the design, I guess)

> I think the latest news section should have common-lisp news first. (I
> couldn't care less about what reddit has to say, but maybe that's just me.)

Actually, that's not just you. I don't really care about reddit either,
personally. I'd like the front page to convey news to those who don't read
their mail and don't read this mailing list (but do visit the site, I
guess). So, yes, this is IMO a great enhancement.

> The getting started page could be a bit more inclusive (or less exclusive).

I understand where you're coming from. The problem we're having is: we want
to get a newbie started, not overwhelmed. Do you have a suggestion how we
can achieve that without excluding all the perfectly good implementations
that currently aren't listed on that page?

> - clisp and lispworks are not listed in Resources -> Common Lisp
>> Implementations
> There are others missing like cmucl and gcl.  What is the criteria here?

Other than being a Common Lisp implementation? None. There's an issue to
track this point and I've added a comment to that extent to that issue
indeed: https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/clo/cl-site/issues/13

> I think the order of the resources pull down should have lisp
> implementations first.

> Resources->Libraries includes a section on implementations.  That seems
> wrong.

Correct on both accounts. I've created issues for both. (
https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/clo/cl-site/issues/23 and

> (Also, what is the criteria for having a link of standard compliance or
> conformance?)

Basically, I think these link to compliance/conformance statements. If
CMUCL or any other implementation has one, I think those should be added.
As per the CL standard, you're compliant when you state your level of
compliance :-)

> I also random clicked on some of the projects.  Quite a few are just place
> holders.  In those cases, could they just be redirected to the git repo?
> It just makes the project look totally dead.

When did you do that? I just yesterday changed a bit of configuration which
caused some of the sites which actually had both the placeholder *and* real
content, turn up the real content instead of the placeholder. This has been
a configuration issue with the site for the last few years (in combination
with laziness of the projects not removing the placeholder...)

I've issued a plan to this mailing list to do exactly as you propose and
direct projects without project pages to the GitLab group pages (which list
all the groups Git repositories).

> I would be kind of neat if the project pages that happen to be hosted on
> common-lisp.net use a uniform style.  That would make the sites look
> really nice.  (Cmucl just redirects to it's wiki page, which is better than
> nothing.)

Traditionally, the pages on the site all had their own style as selected by
the project members. Do we want to change that? I mean, sure, it makes the
site look more consistent. Maybe we can approach the project members of the
various projects and ask them to align to a single style?

> The project hosting page (https://common-lisp.net/project-intro) mentions
> CVS access in the Table of Contents.  That's all gone.  Similarly, the
> "Repositories over the web" section mentions cvs and subversion, as the
> "Subversion" section.  Also, the section on git repos mentions the commit
> list is project-cvs at common-lisp.net.  Is that true?  Finally, IIRC, Trac
> is still available, but really rather limited, maybe even mostly
> read-only.  (Maybe also need to update https://common-lisp.net/tools#trac.)
> Maybe there needs to be a mention somewhere (I didn't find any) that
> c-l.net is using gitlab. (BTW, is there a way to find out what version of
> gitlab is being used?)

In general that page is outdated. We're still building the site generator
to allow easier editing of the sources such as support for Markdown to
allow quicker editing and adjustment of content.

As for the project-cvs mailing list: yes, that has been true until very
recently. I think having a commit mailing list doesn't make as much sense
as it used to, given that GitLab allows monitoring of commits in similar
ways. Although if projects *want* a mailing list to send their commit
messages to, that's still supported.

> These are just some things I noticed when looking over this new site for
> the first time.  Many of these are probably issues with the old site, so
> it's kind of expected the new one has the same issues.


> It looks really great, though!
Thanks for taking the time to provide us with feedback!




http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/clo-devel/attachments/20181014/bcdc63a0/attachment.html>

More information about the clo-devel mailing list