Re: Re: [PATCH+] CLISP support for telent-clx

Evgeny M. Zubok wrote:
> My oppinion. I think that implementation-oriented development of clx by
> splitting it into different implementation-oriented trees across the
> world is not good idea. This is unnecessary dispersion of maintainer's
> efforts. Some good changes in one tree can be ommited in other. A
> structure of CLX allows us to provide implementation-depended part
> (small and relatively easy to 
> update) and implementation-independed part (which grows these days). But
> release announcement policy can be implementation-oriented.

It sounds like you're in agreement here.  The "telent" tree has code in
it that should make it run on many Lisp implementations (I hesitate to
say "supports", because this is after all Free Software), but the
releases we make from it are only tested for SBCL.  If you want to use
th same tree to make CLISP-oriented releases on CLISP timetables, that's
also cool.

> What repository do I need to be oriented: telent or yours? One place for
> CLX development would be better, I think.

Think of the tree at telent.net as being an infrequently updated mirror
of Christophe's.  As a rule, development happens in Christophe's tree
and the one at telent is only updated when making releases.  So, his.


-dan


_______________________________________________
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)