releng/abcl-1.1.0/meetings/20120813: abcl-1.1.0-dev-scrum-20120813.log

File abcl-1.1.0-dev-scrum-20120813.log, 3.7 KB (added by Mark Evenson, 9 years ago)
1<easye> Ok.  We start the abcl-1.1.0 "meeting" now.                     [21:00]
2ERC> /away herep.                                                       [21:01]
3*** You have been marked as being away
4ERC> /away herep.
5*** You have been marked as being away
6ERC> /away
7*** You are no longer marked as being away
8<easye> The format is informal:  if anyone has some issue that hasn't been
9        addressed properly, needs emphasis, etc. just speak up.         [21:02]
10ERC> /topic abcl-1.1.0 release engineering (LIVE)                       [21:03]
11*** easye (~user@ has set the topic for #abcl: "abcl-1.1.0
12    release engineering (LIVE)"
13<stassats> i want a pony!
14* easye has not had time to prepare adequately.
15<easye> Pink?
16<easye> My daughter has you covered.                                    [21:04]
17<stassats> whatever color you have, i can paint it later
18* easye laughs.
19<easye> stassats:  your contributions are greatly appreciated.
20<easye> You are our "bugs barbecue".                                    [21:05]
21<stassats> i'm just trying to run things is all
22<easye> Yeah.  I don't get enough time using ABCL as things pop up.
23<easye> It's amazing to me that we pass more of the ANSI test suite than SBCL,
24        but have more nits that block actual use.                       [21:06]
25<easye> The one point I would like to "bug" my fellow committers is that we
26        really need to start collecting tests for things we fix.
27<easye> One test looks stupid, but once one collects a couple hundred, one
28        gets a quasi "emergent" intelligence.                           [21:07]
29<easye> Is this something we (I) could do to facilitate collecting and
30        committing tests?                                               [21:08]
31<easye> For instance, is the use of RT as the base of ABCL-TEST-LISP, which
32        lacks "tear-up/tear-down" methods somehow a stumbling block?
33* stassats is brewing another bug-report                                [21:36]
34*** ehu` (~ehuels@ has joined channel #abcl               [21:49]
35*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has changed mode for #abcl to +o ehu`
36<easye> ehu: re #211, closure-common loads for me.                      [21:51]
37<ehu`> ah. then we can close.                                           [21:52]
38<ehu`> perfect.                                                         [21:53]
39<easye> New failure in running  hunchentoot seemingly related to CLOS/MOP:
41<ehu`> hmm.                                                             [21:55]
42<ehu`> 198?
43<ehu`> that can't be new.
44<easye> It is a different error.
45<easye> But maybe not.  I'll bisect.
46<easye> But not now.                                                    [21:56]
47<ehu`> sure.
48<easye> #198 looks like MOP::CHECK-INITARGS according to the stack trace.
49                                                                        [21:57]
50<ehu`> that can't cause any new CLOS/MOP errors?!"
51<easye> We're closing the abcl-1.1.0 srum at 2200 EST:  anything else that
52        someone wishes to mention for the logs?
53<easye> ehu:  can you run hunchentoot on trunk?                         [21:58]
54<ehu`> I can try.                                                       [21:59]
55<ehu`> but later tonight.
56<easye> Fine.
57<ehu`> did we do much better over the last week?                        [22:02]
58* easye hasn't had time to figure things out from a mathematical basis.
59                                                                        [22:03]
60ERC> /topic Armed Bear Common Lisp / abcl-1.0.1 / abcl-1.1.0-dev issues
61*** easye (~user@ has set the topic for #abcl: "Armed Bear
62    Common Lisp / abcl-1.0.1 / abcl-1.1.0-dev issues"