On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > Jay: do you prefer off-line commentage?
No, this is fine. > Meanwhile, I'll re-use some of Sam's text (I generally +1 all items > that I have omitted): I won't respond to points that I feel were answered re: Sam. > 20 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> >> * I think tying to GitHub is a mistake -- the system should work for >> for arbitrary Git repositories. > > I very much agree with this -- but I don't want to see github support > gone, just have it added as some plugin into the whole thing that can > make github easier to work with. With something like this it will be > easy to write new ones for other places when people want them. > > >> Having a short syntax for github is great, though. > > IIUC, the branch in the path is required, is that the case? If so, > then I think that it should really work without it too, to get the > simple https://github.com/user/repo syntax. Yes it is required. We could do that, right now there's not assumptions like this (i.e. you always want master) anywhere else in the system so I didn't do it. >> * I think we should drop the `.plt` archive format entirely. > > +17. I don't think that it can be removed completely though, but it > definitely sounds like a mistake to use it as the default for creating > new packages. > > >> * It would be nice to have fewer special files. For example, >> `MANIFEST` could be abolished by just fetching the whole content of >> the directory. Checksums could be included in the `METADATA` file. > > +1 for fewer files. > > As for Sam's comment on MANIFEST -- I disagree with that -- it *is* > required if you want to just make the files visible on some web page. > (Since you cannot rely on a directory listing.) It could be optional > for formats that have a way to get that list though. It is optional for those formats now. It is only used when you use the remote directory URL source. >> * Similarly, the names of the special files could avoid ALL-CAPS, >> and I'd go with the name 'package' rather than `metadata`. > > Excited +1 for both! (When I look at a directory listing, I'd like > them to be de-emphasized.) > > >> * We really need valid SSL certificates for any user-facing sites. >> StartSSL gives them away for free: http://www.startssl.com/ > > (Last time I looked, free SSLs weren't ones that would get trusted by > default popular browsers. If you're talking about some certificate, > then making them is easy.) > > >> * I thought the conclusion of a recent discussion on dev@ was that >> tests, typed, etc sub-collections *are* preferred. > > Yes -- I said that, with the strong preference for projects being a > self-contained directory, which would make management much simpler. > (On authors, clients, and code.) > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
