At Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:51:55 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > Could this accidentally interfere with release v.5.3.5? > (That is, should we wait until this release is pushed out?)
Yes, we should wait until after v5.3.5. I imagined that v5.3.5 would happen on Monday, but if it takes longer, then the switch will have to wait. > Could your revised plan include instructions on how to build > racket and friends from scratch? Can you say more about what is needed in addition to https://github.com/mflatt/racket/blob/pkg/INSTALL.txt ? We can continue to simplify the process and refine those instructions, of course. > On Jun 15, 2013, at 11:41 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > > 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 _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
