First of all, thank you for this incredibly useful tool! It’s been a great resource.
I noticed a potential issue when searching for SBCL on your site. For instance, searching for sbcl at the following link:
https://lazamar.co.uk/nix-versions/?channel=nixpkgs-unstable&package=sbcl
returns some rows with version numbers like this:
sbcl 3bmd-20230618-git 67b4bf1df4ae54d6866d78ccbd1ac7e8a8db8b73 2024-06-13
The 3bmd-20230618-git does not represent a valid SBCL version (e.g., versions like 2.4.4 are expected). This makes the version data less intuitive and potentially misleading.
For comparison, when searching for other Lisp implementations such as CLISP or CCL:
the table appears "clean" and shows proper version formatting.
Could this be investigated and possibly improved for SBCL?
Thanks again for your fantastic work!
First of all, thank you for this incredibly useful tool! It’s been a great resource.
I noticed a potential issue when searching for SBCL on your site. For instance, searching for
sbclat the following link:https://lazamar.co.uk/nix-versions/?channel=nixpkgs-unstable&package=sbcl
returns some rows with version numbers like this:
The
3bmd-20230618-gitdoes not represent a valid SBCL version (e.g., versions like2.4.4are expected). This makes the version data less intuitive and potentially misleading.For comparison, when searching for other Lisp implementations such as CLISP or CCL:
the table appears "clean" and shows proper version formatting.
Could this be investigated and possibly improved for SBCL?
Thanks again for your fantastic work!