I don't feel strongly about this and you seem to, so supposing we
support any conflicting installations, it makes sense for Planet 2.0
to have both major and minor versions.
Jay
2011/2/19 Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Robby Findler
Good point
Jay
2011/2/19 Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org:
5 hours ago, Jay McCarthy wrote:
2011/2/18 Jos Koot jos.k...@telefonica.net:
For a simple windows 7 user as I it is rather difficult to use
command line instructions. I plead for an easy to use gui for
making contributions.
I
Do you mean to inherit Planet's current version number semantics?
Uh. Assigning a fixed structure and semantics to version
numbers was one of the worst things Planet did. Dracula is up to
8:18, and goodness knows what that means. It does not mean there have
been 8 significantly
Carl: your message is unclear to me. Are you saying that attempting to
solve the problem of matching up require requests with available
versions of software packages is hopeless and we shouldn't attempt it,
or are you saying that we should use something that is not (literally)
called version
I am saying we should use something that is not called version
number. On the IRC list I have suggested -- without too much thought
behind it yet -- that we construct an upgrade graph; package
maintainers can specify which package can be thought of as an
automatic improvement on another, and some
Thanks for clarifying. And I'm sure you must know about it and I'm a
bit afraid to even bring it up, but you might want to use planet's
external version feature.
Robby
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Carl Eastlund c...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
I am saying we should use something that is not called
I am aware of the external versions, but since I can't put them in a
require spec to identify the package I want, they aren't terribly
useful as an identifying feature of a package.
Carl Eastlund
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
Thanks for
I've batch my responses to yesterday's questions together.
As a general note, I'd like to have my document be an accurate
reflection of what I should do when I start coding, so if you think I
should update it to clarify the answers to these questions, please let
me know. I'm blinded a bit by my
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Jay McCarthy jay.mccar...@gmail.com wrote:
I've batch my responses to yesterday's questions together.
As a general note, I'd like to have my document be an accurate
reflection of what I should do when I start coding, so if you think I
should update it to
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
It looks to me like you there is relevant, important metadata that
you're making someone fold into an implicit place instead of an
explicit one.
Will you have a convention for these? What if I decide to call
I think that the versioning problem is an important and hard one, and
the obvious first place to turn this infrastructure work into a
research result. Racket gives you a significant opportunity that
others would not have (for a certain class of solutions, at least).
Even better, we have
Minor comment: why encourage names like libgtk and libgtk2 instead
of a major and minor version number (ala PLaneT)? Don't we want those
two libraries to be associated somehow (at least loosely)?
Also, it also isn't clear which of the complaints with PLaneT you're
actually dealing with. I don't
I read your contribution with great interest. One problem that is not
addressed, as far as I have seen, is that any idiot, like me, can install
his/her contributions (modules/collections/packages or whatever)
For a simple windows 7 user as I it is rather difficult to use command line
Jay -
1. Thanks for having this out - this is a great start and a very
important problem to solve
2. Is it correct that *heap* maps to the account name in planet? Such as
jaymccarthy, schematics, or bzlib?
There is always tension between the naming by capability or author in
One more comment: one of PLaneT's design goals what that if you have a
working system and you install a new planet package, then you didn't
break any of the working parts from before. The new system doesn't
seem to have that as a design goal anymore (I noticed automatic
upgrades and freezing being
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
One more comment: one of PLaneT's design goals what that if you have a
working system and you install a new planet package, then you didn't
break any of the working parts from before. The new system doesn't
seem
16 matches
Mail list logo
