I was also going to suggest the ring system as a way of giving more information without imposing an unnecessary artificial distinction. In general I'm enthusiastic about the benefits of not having a sharp dividing line, but it would be useful to show more clearly in the documentation which packages have been vetted to "ring zero" standards.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Jack Firth <jackhfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Rather than splitting "core packages" from "community packages", what if > we used the package ring system? [1] We could establish a way for the > Racket community to bless packages with "ring zero" status, then provide a > --catalog argument to Scribble to lookup ring information in when deciding > how to style package documentation. The docs would remain unified, we'd > have a centralized place to curate packages, and there's no artificial > barrier that prevents user-contributed packages from living alongside > main-distribution packages. > > [1] http://docs.racket-lang.org/pkg/Future_Plans.html?q=ring > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
