On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> 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. > > Well, if you've built them, then can't just you just run "raco test -xp <put package names here>" and come back in a bit? > For now: I build, run some tests, and then push --- hoping that I can > fix or revert quickly when DrDr uncovers problems. > > Perhaps we should be thinking about generalizing the ring-0-based DrDr so we can ask to try out changes? I see that travis tries out pull requests on our repo so there is maybe some prior art to exploit for ideas. Robby > 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
