> On Nov 18, 1:46 am, "Cosmin Stejerean" <cstejer...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > What kind of bugs are acceptable for the
> > purpose of a known good combination? Is slime starting up sufficient?

> It's a whole lot better than slime *not* starting up. Again, context:
> "Getting Started."

> BTW, it's this sort of thinking, that one wants to constantly update
> because some bug or other may have been fixed in the latest svn/cvs
> commit that leads to projects never making releases, which is a Bad
> Thing(TM).

> > Assuming some automated tests can be created to define the
> characteristics
> > of a known good combination I'll volunteer to create a continuous
> > integration server to report the status of trying to use the latest
> version
> > of each project so interested users can quickly see if the most recent
> > combination works, and if not look, at the history to find the most
> recent
> > one that does. Is providing automated tests something you'd like to help
> > with?

> Again, *not* looking for the latest and greatest in the context of
> "Getting Started." Merely looking for "known to work even though it's
> 6 months old."

> As the old chestnut goes, one never gets a second chance to make a
> first impression. The first impression one gets now does *not* reflect
> the quality of clojure at this point. The first impression one gets
> now is "OK, broken, check back later." Clojure is more mature than
> this, and the initial setup brokenness is easily solved by putting up
> an archive of working versions of the various components even if they
> grow to be many months old before they're refreshed. This would not
> require an automated testing server, just a single tar command line
> once or twice a year.

> regards,