On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > I don't know whether the "-lib"/"-docs" split is worthwhile, but it's > part of erring on the side of breaking things apart. Maybe it makes > more sense to keep things together and rely on binary packaging to > reduce dependencies.
For Typed Racket, it seems worth it in one place, and isn't needed in another. For the core of TR, making it available without docs is useful. I'm less sure about the contents of `typed/*`. I suppose that will depend on whether those packages themselves ship with documentation. > Also worth noting is that the "unstable" collection does not work > nicely as a package --- as should be expected. I created a few > "unstable-" packages and imagine many more, but I'm not sure that's the > right way to go. I think we should just make all of `unstable` go away as part of this transition. It was mostly a way to work around the monolithic nature of the collections tree, and thus has outlived its purpose. One question -- a bunch of unstable seems to be in the typed-racket-lib package. Why is that? > So, how does this split correspond to what you expected? (My guess is > that this far too fine-grained for some of us, while others will want > exactly this kind of flexibility.) For me, I'd expect the `typed-racket-more` package to be smaller, and probably to be distributed to some of its dependencies. Or perhaps split out into things like `rackunit-typed` and `gui-typed`. Other than that, the split makes sense to me for the code I maintain. Sam _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
