On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > > I think we're at the point, though, for you to assess whether this is > the right direction. If it looks like a good direction, then the > follow-up question is how fast to move. > > Some possible conclusions: > > 1. This is the wrong way. > > 2. This is plausible, but the details are not right or not clear; we > should stick with our current repository structure for at least one > more release and consider switching after that. > > 3. This will work, and we should switch right away and start sorting > out the details together --- but we should not actually break out > into separate repositories until after a release or so. > > 4. This will work, we should try to switch right away --- AND we should > split the repository as soon as possible.
I'm mostly in favor of 3, but I'm still unsure about some of the details. I think we won't really converge on these details without moving forward, so we should go with this, but my major concerns are: - I'm not entirely happy with the -doc/-lib/etc split, since it seems to make everything more verbose and difficult to work with. But I haven't tried developing in that environment, so maybe it's not a big deal. I also worry that it makes our repository less approachable to new people. - We still don't have a ton of experience with the package system itself -- it's designated as beta in the current release, and there are very few packages with non-trivial dependencies. In contrast, the core repository has a lot of dependencies. For example, how will we deal with backwards-incompatible changes to the split itself, since packages are intended to be permanently compatible? Sam _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
