At Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:44:17 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > I think we have, roughly, two options: > > 1. Something like the split Matthew's tree proposes. In fact, I think > we need to split some things further, so that `gui-lib` doesn't depend > on scribble-related things. > 2. Something much, much more coarse-grained, such as the current split > between the 'textual', 'graphical', 'drracket', and 'full' > distributions. Note that even these don't really make sense because of > documentation build dependencies. > > I think that 1 is the right choice. > > I also think that continuing to develop in separate branches as > proposals is a mistake. It's very hard to understand what's going on > in the `pkg` version of the tree without using it -- I certainly > didn't. it's also very hard to construct working trees in this fashion > without anyone using the code. If we're going to make this transition > soon, we should do it now, and then reorganize packages as necessary.
I agree, and so I'll renew the proposal that we make the switch. Could we switch with option 1 on, say, Tuesday? _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
