Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:36:51 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > (BTW, a possible source of confusion: I'm assuming that
> > distribution must be done via archives and not via repository
> > specs, since there should be some way to put the compiled files in
> > there.
>
At Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:36:51 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> (BTW, a possible source of confusion: I'm assuming that distribution
> must be done via archives and not via repository specs, since there
> should be some way to put the compiled files in there.
I don't think that's the right assumption. W
50 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Mon, 3 Jun 2013 08:27:19 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> >
> > A very cheap way to do this is to use these sub-package
> > specifications only for creating packages for distribution. With
> > the obvious resulting package file names, this means that there is
At Mon, 3 Jun 2013 08:27:19 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> On Thursday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> >
> > You've sketched out the producer side, and I'm not sure of some
> > about some of those details. The consumer side seems even more
> > complex to me. It seems like the package system would have to
On Thursday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> You've sketched out the producer side, and I'm not sure of some
> about some of those details. The consumer side seems even more
> complex to me. It seems like the package system would have to keep
> track of which subpackages are installed for a package, pr
As I understand things, we should certainly try to align divisions of
responsibility with divisions of code (including tests and docs) among
packages.
My initial experiment probably doesn't align them very well, and I'd
expect a better alignment to emerge from everyone's efforts to improve
some in
Matthew,
I have seen 'personal responsibility' mentioned only in passing.
Does existence of package imply any personal responsibilities?
The current organization doesn't seem to say so.
-- Matthias
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
At Thu, 30 May 2013 10:02:29 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> One question, though: how does this work with the package manager.
> Right now, only repositories can be specified as the source when
> creating a package at pkg.racket-lang.org. There must be something
> I'm missing about how this w
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Thu, 30 May 2013 09:01:16 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> I also really don't want to have Typed Racket's documentation outside
>> of Typed Racket's code repository, and I think it would be a mistake
>> to do that for other parts of R
At Thu, 30 May 2013 09:01:16 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> I also really don't want to have Typed Racket's documentation outside
> of Typed Racket's code repository, and I think it would be a mistake
> to do that for other parts of Racket. An on-point comment on this
> from just yesterday in
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> To summarize, I see our options as
>
> 1. Suspend the effort to reorganize our repository into packages and
> instead start experimenting with subpackages.
>
> 2. Use a naming convention and keep the same kind of split as in the
>
At Wed, 29 May 2013 15:51:30 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 20 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > > [..."package distribution kinds"...]
> >
> > Well, I agree with all these thoughts, but what's the conclusion?
> >
> > There's no requirement that packages be in multiple repositories,
> > but dif
[shuffled]
20 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Just to be clear, I agree that we want to minimize cycles.
>
> I don't think that actually prohibiting cycles is going to be workable,
> though, especially at the level of documentation.
>
> Cycles at the level of "-lib" suggest to me that the or
Just to be clear, I agree that we want to minimize cycles.
I don't think that actually prohibiting cycles is going to be workable,
though, especially at the level of documentation.
Cycles at the level of "-lib" suggest to me that the organization
should be improved.
Cycles at the level of "-doc"
At Wed, 29 May 2013 14:14:11 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> * Does this split actually work wrt having no circular dependencies?
It's mostly non-circular, but there are some exceptions.
I think there are no circularities among the "-lib" packages, but I'm
not 100% certain.
The existing "-docs" pac
20 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> Yes. Package dependencies can be cyclic (unlike module
> dependencies), and packages can have cyclic build dependencies
> without cyclic run dependencies.
(*sigh*) So the idea of acyclic package graph as module containers is
dead?
But to explain my sigh
An hour ago, Neil Toronto wrote:
>
> I expect `plot' to depend on `math' in the near-ish future. Right
> now, `math' already depends on `plot' to build its docs. IOW, I
> expect the sources to be interdependent, but as binaries, `plot'
> will depend on `math' but `math' won't depend on `plot'. Can
Yesterday, Robby Findler wrote:
> This looks great to me!
>
> I don't have a good sense of what level of granularity is the right
> one, but I naturally would have gone even finer grained with
> drracket: the macro-debugger, pkg/gui, and maybe even the
> gui-debugger I would have separated out. (P
Yesterday, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> One question -- a bunch of unstable seems to be in the
> typed-racket-lib package. Why is that?
Since these things are used in TR only, I think that they should move
back. Ie, you get a trimmed TR repo with unstable/stuff which you
move to a better plac
At Wed, 29 May 2013 11:11:18 -0600, Neil Toronto wrote:
> On 05/28/2013 03:44 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't know whether the "-lib"/"-docs" split is worthwhile, but it's
> >> part of erring on the side of breaking things
Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Here's a first experiment at moving collections around into packages:
>
> https://github.com/mflatt/racket/tree/pkg
> [...]
Comments in no particular order, mostly about the actual file
selections. Many are kind of small todo-style laundry items, some are
repea
On 05/28/2013 03:44 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
I don't know whether the "-lib"/"-docs" split is worthwhile, but it's
part of erring on the side of breaking things apart. Maybe it makes
more sense to keep things together and rely on bina
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Tue, 28 May 2013 19:36:14 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
> > I don't have a good sense of what level of granularity is the right one,
> > but I naturally would have gone even finer grained with drracket: the
> > macro-debugger, pkg/gui, and
At Tue, 28 May 2013 19:36:14 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
> I don't have a good sense of what level of granularity is the right one,
> but I naturally would have gone even finer grained with drracket: the
> macro-debugger, pkg/gui, and maybe even the gui-debugger I would have
> separated out. (Proba
At Tue, 28 May 2013 17:44:08 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> One question -- a bunch of unstable seems to be in the
> typed-racket-lib package. Why is that?
Just a shortcut. Typed Racket seemed to be the only user of the
libraries in the repo, so I put the libraries there for now.
> > So, ho
This looks great to me!
I don't have a good sense of what level of granularity is the right one,
but I naturally would have gone even finer grained with drracket: the
macro-debugger, pkg/gui, and maybe even the gui-debugger I would have
separated out. (Probably you were focused on lower-level thin
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> I don't know whether the "-lib"/"-docs" split is worthwhile, but it's
> part of erring on the side of breaking things apart. Maybe it makes
> more sense to keep things together and rely on binary packaging to
> reduce dependencies.
For Typ
27 matches
Mail list logo
