Yes. Even if (as in the future) the current ring-0 packages weren't all the same git repository, I'd certainly at least try building them with this change.
I think that running all the tests in the same way that DrDr does is not yet easy, but I hope we're moving in the direction of making that easier, and then my process can improve. For now: I build, run some tests, and then push --- hoping that I can fix or revert quickly when DrDr uncovers problems. At Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:39:25 -0600, Robby Findler wrote: > (I think it is okay.) > > But here's a chance for me to point out something I heard about in a > conversation with Satnam Singh at OOPSLA about how Google works that it > seems like would be a nice fit for us. Here's my adaptation to our world: > when you push out what some might consider a change that breaks clients > (like this one where you also hope to avoid a new package) you are obliged > to submit pull requests on all ring-0 packages to (at a min) get all test > cases to pass. > > I guess you did that here, at least for the ring-0 packages in the racket > git repo, which is where the "I found ..." comment comes from? > > Robby > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > > Currently, `(define-serializable-struct id ....)` expands to `(provide > > deserialize-info:id-v0)`. The `deserialize-info...` identifier needs to > > be exported to make things work, but the export is a hassle: the > > programmer doesn't care about it, it's not usually documented, > > re-exporting modules don't want to re-export it, and so on. > > > > I'm planning to change `define-serializable-struct` so that the export > > is put in a `deserialize-info` submodule, where it should cause less > > trouble. This is a slightly backward-incompatible change; I found a > > couple of modules that explicitly excluded `deserialize-info...` on > > import, and so those exclusions would have to be dropped. > > > > The change could also be backward-incompatible by changing the protocol > > for providers of deserialization other than `define-serializeable-struct`. > > That problem is easier to address: `deserialize` can try a > > `deserialze-info` submodule first, and if the export isn't found, then > > it can try the original module. > > > > Ok? > > > > _________________________ > > Racket Developers list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > > _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev