On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Faré wrote:
> The problem is that you'll find no one to bless your changes, as ASDF
> does not have a clearly defined dictator, the original author having left,
> our main maintainer not having the resources to become one, and a vast
> undefined community of users
Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll writes:
> When I find time, in a week or so, I will try to produce a set of
> patches for the following things:
> - A new function that creates a sorted list of module dependencies
> wrapping around TRAVERSE This function should produce the same result
> irrespectively of w
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
> Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll writes:
>
>> When I find time, in a week or so, I will try to produce a set of
>> patches for the following things:
>> - A new function that creates a sorted list of module dependencies
>> wrapping around TRAVE
I finish my business trip.
Apologies for my apparent (actual?) vanishing!
--
Gary Warren King, metabang.com
Cell: (413) 559 8738
Fax: (206) 338-4052
gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM * gwking on twitter
___
asdf-devel mailing list
asdf-devel@comm
Faré wrote:
> (Moving the discussion from the ecl list to the asdf list,
> originally Re: ECL support for cl-launch and xcvb)
>
> 2009/11/9 Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll :
[...snip...]
>> This is another thing I have been asking help from the ASDF
>> maintainers. We cannot push our extensions upstream u
Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
>
> Furthermore, in order to answer your question, what I expect of the
> test facility is that once every framework hooks in, one is able to
> write
>
> (defsystem :my-package
> :components ((:file "my-package"))
> :in-order-to ((test-op (rt-test-op :my-package-
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
> FWIW, I'd suggest
>
> (defsystem my-package
> :class rt-testable-system
> :components .
> )
>
> When you do (oos 'test-op 'my-package), the rt-testable-system
> (presumably a subclass of system and rt-testable-mixin) would take care
>
2009/11/10 Robert Goldman :
> An additional problem is that there is no clear relationship between the
> ASDF project and the versions of ASDF shipped with implementations.
>
> I find that this is a strong disincentive for me to work on even
> backwards-compatible extensions to ASDF (asdf extension
