New release

[aadcg]

Now that nfiles supports Android, it's time for a new release.

Could someone detail the process? I'm interested in doing it myself. Thanks.

[aartaka]

It should be mostly straightforward:

• Push a git tag with a new release. Magit t r.
• Send a patch with a new package definition to Guix (merely changing the version number and the hash).
  • For an additional point, try adding guix.scm file to the repository before doing this, so that nfiles have their Guix env available at all times. See ntemplate for an example development guix.scm file.
• Profit!

I mean, it probably should be something fancier with release notes and stuff, but we don't yet have a GitHub Actions release workflow for libraries to generate these release notes somehow, and editing those by hand is meh.

[Ambrevar]

• Push a git tag with a new release. Magit t r.

The Git tag should be on the commit that updates the version number in the .asd.

[aadcg]

Thanks, will do.

I'm deferring this release to the moment when I'll test nfiles a bit more on Termux.

[Ambrevar]

@aadcg Shall we release 1.1.0?

[aadcg]

Yes. I can do it!

[Ambrevar]

OK, please do :)

[aadcg]

@Ambrevar I've pushed the release tag, but I noticed that the tests are failing (asdf:test-system "nfiles"). Could you take a look? The cause is related to test with-paths, that throws out an error, and nasdf doesn't like that.

[Ambrevar]

It was supposed to be version 1.1.0, because it contains new features.

As for the tests, they pass locally for me. The CI fails because of network errors. What's your output?

[aadcg]

It was supposed to be version 1.1.0, because it contains new features.

Ups, that's my fault. I can force push a fix just this time...

As for the tests, they pass locally for me. The CI fails because of network errors. What's your output?

...
Test Summary for :NFILES/TESTS (31 tests 10.14 sec)
  | 115 assertions total
  | 115 passed
  | 0 failed
  | 0 execution errors
  | 0 warnings
  | 0 empty
  | 0 missing tests

-------   ENDING Testing: NFILES/TESTS 
; NASDF_TESTS_QUIT_ON_FAIL=NIL
; ------- STARTING Compilation Testing: (NFILES)
; Errors:
((#<PACKAGE "NFILES"> (DISCARD IGNORE-CHECKSUM OVERWRITE ASK RELOAD)))
Found unbound exported symbols in 1 package.
Unhandled SIMPLE-ERROR in thread #<SB-THREAD:THREAD "main thread" RUNNING
                                    {100AE50113}>:
  ((#<PACKAGE "NFILES"> (DISCARD IGNORE-CHECKSUM OVERWRITE ASK RELOAD)))
Found unbound exported symbols in 1 package.

Backtrace for: #<SB-THREAD:THREAD "main thread" RUNNING {100AE50113}>
0: (SB-DEBUG::DEBUGGER-DISABLED-HOOK #<SIMPLE-ERROR "~a~&Found unbound exported symbols in ~a package~:p." {1004CE99B3}> #<unused argument> :QUIT T)
1: (SB-DEBUG::RUN-HOOK *INVOKE-DEBUGGER-HOOK* #<SIMPLE-ERROR "~a~&Found unbound exported symbols in ~a package~:p." {1004CE99B3}>)
2: (INVOKE-DEBUGGER #<SIMPLE-ERROR "~a~&Found unbound exported symbols in ~a package~:p." {1004CE99B3}>)
3: (ERROR "~a~&Found unbound exported symbols in ~a package~:p." ((#<PACKAGE "NFILES"> (NFILES:DISCARD NFILES:IGNORE-CHECKSUM NFILES:OVERWRITE NFILES:ASK NFILES:RELOAD))) 1)
4: (NASDF::UNBOUND-EXPORTS :NFILES)
5: ((:METHOD ASDF/ACTION:PERFORM (ASDF/LISP-ACTION:TEST-OP NASDF:NASDF-COMPILATION-TEST-SYSTEM)) #<unused argument> #<NASDF:NASDF-COMPILATION-TEST-SYSTEM "nfiles/tests/compilation">) [fast-method]
6: ((SB-PCL::EMF ASDF/ACTION:PERFORM) #<unused argument> #<unused argument> #<ASDF/LISP-ACTION:TEST-OP > #<NASDF:NASDF-COMPILATION-TEST-SYSTEM "nfiles/tests/compilation">)
7: ((LAMBDA NIL :IN ASDF/ACTION:CALL-WHILE-VISITING-ACTION))
8: ((:METHOD ASDF/ACTION:PERFORM :AROUND (ASDF/LISP-ACTION:TEST-OP NASDF:NASDF-TEST-SYSTEM)) #<ASDF/LISP-ACTION:TEST-OP > #<NASDF:NASDF-COMPILATION-TEST-SYSTEM "nfiles/tests/compilation">) [fast-method]
9: ((:METHOD ASDF/ACTION:PERFORM-WITH-RESTARTS :AROUND (T T)) #<ASDF/LISP-ACTION:TEST-OP > #<NASDF:NASDF-COMPILATION-TEST-SYSTEM "nfiles/tests/compilation">) [fast-method]
10: ((:METHOD ASDF/PLAN:PERFORM-PLAN (T)) #<ASDF/PLAN:SEQUENTIAL-PLAN {10067DBF53}>) [fast-method]
11: ((FLET SB-C::WITH-IT :IN SB-C::%WITH-COMPILATION-UNIT))
12: ((:METHOD ASDF/PLAN:PERFORM-PLAN :AROUND (T)) #<ASDF/PLAN:SEQUENTIAL-PLAN {10067DBF53}>) [fast-method]
13: ((:METHOD ASDF/OPERATE:OPERATE (ASDF/OPERATION:OPERATION ASDF/COMPONENT:COMPONENT)) #<ASDF/LISP-ACTION:TEST-OP > #<ASDF/SYSTEM:SYSTEM "nfiles"> :PLAN-CLASS NIL :PLAN-OPTIONS NIL) [fast-method]
14: ((SB-PCL::EMF ASDF/OPERATE:OPERATE) #<unused argument> #<unused argument> #<ASDF/LISP-ACTION:TEST-OP > #<ASDF/SYSTEM:SYSTEM "nfiles">)
15: ((LAMBDA NIL :IN ASDF/OPERATE:OPERATE))
16: ((:METHOD ASDF/OPERATE:OPERATE :AROUND (T T)) #<ASDF/LISP-ACTION:TEST-OP > #<ASDF/SYSTEM:SYSTEM "nfiles">) [fast-method]
17: ((SB-PCL::EMF ASDF/OPERATE:OPERATE) #<unused argument> #<unused argument> ASDF/LISP-ACTION:TEST-OP "nfiles")
18: ((LAMBDA NIL :IN ASDF/OPERATE:OPERATE))
19: ((:METHOD ASDF/OPERATE:OPERATE :AROUND (T T)) ASDF/LISP-ACTION:TEST-OP "nfiles") [fast-method]
20: (ASDF/SESSION:CALL-WITH-ASDF-SESSION #<FUNCTION (LAMBDA NIL :IN ASDF/OPERATE:OPERATE) {10055FEFEB}> :OVERRIDE T :KEY NIL :OVERRIDE-CACHE T :OVERRIDE-FORCING NIL)
21: ((LAMBDA NIL :IN ASDF/OPERATE:OPERATE))
22: (ASDF/SESSION:CALL-WITH-ASDF-SESSION #<FUNCTION (LAMBDA NIL :IN ASDF/OPERATE:OPERATE) {100451657B}> :OVERRIDE NIL :KEY NIL :OVERRIDE-CACHE NIL :OVERRIDE-FORCING NIL)
23: ((:METHOD ASDF/OPERATE:OPERATE :AROUND (T T)) ASDF/LISP-ACTION:TEST-OP "nfiles") [fast-method]
24: (ASDF/OPERATE:TEST-SYSTEM "nfiles")
25: (SB-INT:SIMPLE-EVAL-IN-LEXENV (ASDF/OPERATE:TEST-SYSTEM "nfiles") #<NULL-LEXENV>)
26: (EVAL (ASDF/OPERATE:TEST-SYSTEM "nfiles"))
27: (SB-IMPL::PROCESS-EVAL/LOAD-OPTIONS ((:EVAL . "(require :asdf)") (:EVAL . #<(SIMPLE-ARRAY CHARACTER (244)) (asdf:initialize-source-registry (list :source-registry (list :tree (uiop:ensure-pathname "/gnu/store/nxwswxz4gv793lr889ap9n3x8m28h402-sbcl-nfiles-1.0.1/share/common-lisp/sbcl/nfiles" :truenamize t :e... {100AF3B4EF}>) (:EVAL . "(asdf:test-system \"nfiles\")") (:QUIT)))
28: (SB-IMPL::TOPLEVEL-INIT)
29: ((FLET SB-UNIX::BODY :IN SB-IMPL::START-LISP))
30: ((FLET "WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS-BODY-3" :IN SB-IMPL::START-LISP))
31: (SB-IMPL::%START-LISP)

unhandled condition in --disable-debugger mode, quitting
; 
; compilation unit aborted
;   caught 1 fatal ERROR condition
;   printed 9 notes
error: in phase 'check': uncaught exception:
%exception #<&invoke-error program: "/gnu/store/bjj3ny87yckv1y5ys2cld0sy4sp9nfm0-sbcl-2.2.11/bin/sbcl" arguments: ("--non-interactive" "--eval" "(require :asdf)" "--eval" "(asdf:initialize-source-registry (list :source-registry (list :tree (uiop:ensure-pathname \"/gnu/store/nxwswxz4gv793lr889ap9n3x8m28h402-sbcl-nfiles-1.0.1/share/common-lisp/sbcl/nfiles\" :truenamize t :ensure-directory t)) :inherit-configuration))" "--eval" "(asdf:test-system \"nfiles\")") exit-status: 1 term-signal: #f stop-signal: #f> 
phase `check' failed after 11.8 seconds
command "/gnu/store/bjj3ny87yckv1y5ys2cld0sy4sp9nfm0-sbcl-2.2.11/bin/sbcl" "--non-interactive" "--eval" "(require :asdf)" "--eval" "(asdf:initialize-source-registry (list :source-registry (list :tree (uiop:ensure-pathname \"/gnu/store/nxwswxz4gv793lr889ap9n3x8m28h402-sbcl-nfiles-1.0.1/share/common-lisp/sbcl/nfiles\" :truenamize t :ensure-directory t)) :inherit-configuration))" "--eval" "(asdf:test-system \"nfiles\")" failed with status 1
builder for `/gnu/store/d0rd6q34dvxhcfhh22cp4dnbpprlvwzi-sbcl-nfiles-1.0.1.drv' failed with exit code 1
build of /gnu/store/d0rd6q34dvxhcfhh22cp4dnbpprlvwzi-sbcl-nfiles-1.0.1.drv failed
View build log at '/var/log/guix/drvs/d0/rd6q34dvxhcfhh22cp4dnbpprlvwzi-sbcl-nfiles-1.0.1.drv.gz'.
guix build: error: build of `/gnu/store/d0rd6q34dvxhcfhh22cp4dnbpprlvwzi-sbcl-nfiles-1.0.1.drv' failed

[Ambrevar]

This is #14. Your log does not contain with-paths. Mistake?

[aadcg]

@Ambrevar sorry for confusing you. The issue with the tests is not related to with-paths, but with #14 as you note!

((#<PACKAGE "NFILES">
  (DISCARD IGNORE-CHECKSUM ASK RELOAD OVERWRITE)))
Found unbound exported symbols in 1 packages.
   [Condition of type SIMPLE-ERROR]

I could disable the tests in the Guix package definition but I don't think it makes much sense.

Wouldn't it be better to merge #14, tag a release and update on Guix?

[aadcg]

Also, can we get rid of commit 3e3f0cca3f95f12a184d5b77c1d66e327887b46a? It feels wrong to tag a commit where the tests fail.

[Ambrevar]

The version number is wrong anyways :p

For the test issue: let's just comment out the compilation tests in the .asd for now and release 1.1.0. @aadcg OK with you?

[aadcg]

Yes, makes sense to me!

[aadcg]

@Ambrevar does it look good to you?

If I understood correctly you think we should just ignore the fact that there's a tag for 1.0.1 correct?

[aadcg]

I'm afraid I've made a mistake again...

Can you please temporarily give me permission to force push to clean up the mess?

[Ambrevar]

Note for next time: do this via a pull request ;)

[Ambrevar]

Can you please temporarily give me permission to force push to clean up the mess?

Done.

[aadcg]

Note for next time: do this via a pull request ;)

Absolutely!

[aadcg]

It should be good now @Ambrevar. Please revert the permission to force push. Thanks.

I'll send a patch to Guix.

[Ambrevar]

Done, thanks.

[aadcg]

@Ambrevar, if you have commit access, apply the patch I've sent to Guix.

[Ambrevar]

Actually I'm going to release a new version with #16 applied and NASDF updates. In any case, I'll take care of the Guix update. Thanks!