[plt-scheme] If With No Else and Other Changes

From: Robby Findler (robby at cs.uchicago.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 31 11:51:35 EST 2008

This has been something we've been discussing internally. Currently
people seemed to think that keeping a single repository for both v3xx
and v4.x is a good idea.

I'm not too sure myself, but I think that in the case below, the way
to go is to make a major version increment when you add v4
compatibility and then set a version requirement on that new major

Implicit in this is the observation that once you start using v4
goodies (like #lang, etc) you cannot keep v3xx compatibility.


On Jan 31, 2008 10:46 AM, Doug Williams <m.douglas.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if others are as confused as me, but for someone with
> substantial sized collections in PLaneT that wants a smooth migration to V4
> without breaking V3.72 it isn't 'obvious' how to do this in the context of
> PLaneT.  Should we use the new languages (like scheme or scheme/base or
> scheme/gui)?  If we do so, will we break our packages in V3.72 (which is
> definitely not a good thing to do)?  Should we continue to use the mzscheme
> language until the transition is complete?  Should we maintain two version
> of our collections - one for V3.72 (distributed via PLaneT) and another for
> V4 (distributed by some other mechanism)?  I'm already having to maintain
> separate documentation mechanisms across the two as we go to Scribble and I
> haven't seen how we're going to smoothly merge these across the V3 -> V4
> boundary.  This is probably enough of a list for now.
> Doug
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Robby Findler <robby at cs.uchicago.edu>
> wrote:
> > Sorry for not writing this in my first reply.
> >
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2008 2:34 PM, Doug Williams <m.douglas.williams at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > What other constructs might bite us?
> >
> > See plt/doc/release-notes/mzscheme/MzScheme_4.txt.
> >
> > hth,
> > Robby
> >

Posted on the users mailing list.