Re: CLX and common-lisp.net

Mikel Bancroft <[email protected]> writes:

>> I don't actually see any point for a common-lisp.net project for CLX.
>> There is no missing infrastructure that is worth speaking of;
>> telent-clx is already portable across sbcl, openmcl, and ecl; and the
>> maintainers of other lisp implementations are aware of the existence
>> of the telent-clx repository: if they do not choose to use it as their
>> implementation, that is their privilege.
>
> Actually, I'm not sure we do.
>
> I was just visiting the list to find out how I could go about submitting
> diffs to add support for modern Allegro CL version (6.2 and newer), when
> I stumbled upon this message..
>
> I recently went through and merged in code from the clx module still
> distributed with Allegro CL and was able to run the demos successfully.
> I'd very much like to have these changes added if that's possible.

Well, I'd have thought the first step would be to make your patches
public: in the darcs model of distribution, I think that's done by
setting up a publically-accessible darcs repository (with "darcs push"
to your webspace).  Then those patches can be pulled by both your
users (or beta testers) and those making releases.

>> What actual advantages do you think a different hosting would provide?
>> (And would the work spent in any transition be better spent in adding
>> functionality, either cross-implementation or by patching in support
>> for other lisps?)
>
> Franz, for one, would very much like to be able to point users at a
> supported CLX module (which we currently do not). While there's a bunch
> more work necessary to make that happen, making telent-clx run under
> Allegro is a step in the right direction.

What does "supported" mean in this instance?  That is, supported by
whom?  Currently, the release engineering is small-to-nonexistent, and
I doubt that there's a large pool of workers ready to make the release
engineering smooth on additional platforms: the support we have from
the existing vendors comes directly from those vendors or their
surrogates.

I suppose what I'm cautioning against is the expectation that the
existence of telent-clx can absolve an individual vendor of support
responsibility for their own users; what it can do, of course, is make
features and fixes available to users of different lisps in a
relatively unified way.

Lest all that seem terribly negative, let me finish by saying "welcome
aboard!" :-)

Cheers,

Christophe

_______________________________________________
Portable-clx mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.metacircles.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/portable-clx
See http://www.cliki.net/clx for darcs URL(s)