Re: [racket-dev] release 5.3.5

2013-06-15 Thread Greg Hendershott
1. I'm really excited about the book, which I'll buy. 2. Issuing a release solely to ship code for a book: a. Seems unusual (to me), in general. b. Plus right now, message seems at odds with the new package manager and plan to move away from shipping monolithic collects? Admittedly that

Re: [racket-dev] release 5.3.5

2013-06-15 Thread Jay McCarthy
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Greg Hendershott greghendersh...@gmail.com wrote: 1. I'm really excited about the book, which I'll buy. 2. Issuing a release solely to ship code for a book: a. Seems unusual (to me), in general. b. Plus right now, message seems at odds with the new

Re: [racket-dev] PLaneT(2): Single vs multi-collection packages

2013-06-15 Thread Matthew Flatt
At Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:14:58 -0400, Greg Hendershott wrote: I just want to be clear what I need to do to keep compatibility with 5.3.4 for existing packages. If that means adding something to info.rkt to say, yeah, I'm still multi, I may do that. Yes, that's exactly what will be required for

Re: [racket-dev] updated proposal for moving to packages

2013-06-15 Thread Matthew Flatt
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,

Re: [racket-dev] updated proposal for moving to packages

2013-06-15 Thread Matthias Felleisen
Could this accidentally interfere with release v.5.3.5? (That is, should we wait until this release is pushed out?) Could your revised plan include instructions on how to build racket and friends from scratch? -- Matthias On Jun 15, 2013, at 11:41 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote: At Thu, 13

Re: [racket-dev] updated proposal for moving to packages

2013-06-15 Thread Matthew Flatt
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,

Re: [racket-dev] experience using the `pkg` branch

2013-06-15 Thread Matthew Flatt
At Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:56:52 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: * The error message when you look for a missing collection is really long if you have a lot of packages installed Yes. I have been thinking about whether there's a better solution than just not showing the paths, but I can just drop

Re: [racket-dev] updated proposal for moving to packages

2013-06-15 Thread Matthias Felleisen
On Jun 15, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: 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. I hadn't seen this file. Are you

Re: [racket-dev] updated proposal for moving to packages

2013-06-15 Thread Matthew Flatt
At Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:33:30 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote: On Jun 15, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: 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