On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > To summarize, I see our options as > > 1. Suspend the effort to reorganize our repository into packages and > instead start experimenting with subpackages. > > 2. Use a naming convention and keep the same kind of split as in the > experimental reorganization --- and decide on some initial > conventions ("-lib", "-doc", "-typed", and "-exe"?). > > 3. Reorganize our repository into packages, but don't try to split out > things that conceptually belong together but have different kinds > of dependencies (such as run-time code versus documentation). > > My preference in order is 2, 3, 1.
I don't think we should think of 1 as an option at this point. I also really don't want to have Typed Racket's documentation outside of Typed Racket's code repository, and I think it would be a mistake to do that for other parts of Racket. An on-point comment on this from just yesterday in a different context: https://twitter.com/domenic/status/339848565838983168 and I think the same reasons that's true would make splitting repositories for code and documentation a big mistake. That doesn't mean that "-typed" versions of some packages doesn't make sense, though (gui-typed, for example). I would significantly prefer the binary packages idea to splitting the repositories. Sam _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev