[plt-dev] Re: [plt-scheme] SchemeUnit confusion

Well, if you look at the larger picture of a community-wide
synchronized release of everything that is currently in planet, that
is clearly untenable. So there is some value in letting things move
independently. Another thing to compare to is OS releases. Perhaps we
should be spending more manpower on planet and everything outside of
mzscheme and a few core libraries should move there. Then, a major
release corresponds to picking a set of version numbers from planet
and packaging them into a single distributable.

Robby

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Matthias Felleisen<matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> Thanks. I understand that but I find the probability of such
> scenarios low. Perhaps it's a lack of experience with planet
> libraries.
>
> Eli just told me that SU isn't a part of the release yet, so my
> assumptions were wrong, too.
>
> I think it should be a part of the release and I have told Eli so.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
>
>> I think the worry goes something like this:
>>
>> a) I use the plt web server and scheme unit (to pick two arbitrary
>> parts of the distribution, really this could be X and Y iiuc).
>> b) a new release comes out that has a bugfix in the web server that I need
>> c) the new release also comes with backwards incompatibilities to
>> schemeunit that break my code that I don't have time at the moment to
>> fix.
>>
>> What to do? Well, if I had used schemeunit from planet, I could
>> (probably) upgrade the webserver only, without upgrading schemeunit.
>>
>> Robby
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Matthias Felleisen<matthias at ccs.neu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Then I don't understand the exchange either. People who use an actual
>>> release (as opposed to the svn head) have a stable release of SU. When
>>> the next release comes out, they get a pre-compiled bundle, ready to
>>> install.
>>>
>>> Sorry for being dense -- Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 9, 2009, at 9:31 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the concern is for code that is being written by people who
>>>> aren't working in our SVN repository.
>>>>
>>>> Robby
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Matthias Felleisen<matthias at ccs.neu.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We routinely update collections in the core code base and most of the
>>>>> time,
>>>>> it suffices to run setup on the new collection or a few others.
>>>>> (Personally
>>>>> I often update my code base from scratch once a day.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it would be great if we got into this mode for SU, too. --
>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 9, 2009, at 5:10 AM, Dave Gurnell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From an app developer's point of view, I think Noel's reasoning is
>>>>>> this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of PLT is bundled together under one big version number. If you
>>>>>> upgrade the core, you upgrade all the satellite libraries as well.
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> three drawbacks:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  - if you want to upgrade to a newer version of PLT for an improvement
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> one library, you may have to deal with potential
>>>>>> backwards-incompatible
>>>>>> changes in other libraries at the same time;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  - compiling all of PLT can be slow;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  - other software you have developed may still use older versions of
>>>>>> PLT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PLaneT offers a little more flexibility: to a certain degree you can
>>>>>> choose to upgrade one dependency independently of the rest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, if Noel makes a change to Schemeunit, and a developer
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> requiring it from the core, he/she will have to update all of PLT at
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> same time, which might take a while and make upgrading difficult. If,
>>>>>> however, the developer is requiring Schemeunit from PLaneT, they
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> hopefully be able to just upgrade that one library and leave
>>>>>> everything
>>>>>> else
>>>>>> as-is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Noel, I don't understand this response at all. Could you elaborate?
>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>> the past we have deprecated planet package when we moved code into
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> core.
>>>>>>> -- Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dependency management. We've been bitten by changes in the web
>>>>>>>> server
>>>>>>>> stopping us upgrading PLT to get bug fixes in other areas. Now
>>>>>>>> SchemeUnit isn't as likely to change as the web server, but why make
>>>>>>>> the dependency if you can avoid it? (This only applies if you aren't
>>>>>>>> developing core code. If you are, use the core version.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> N.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why recommend the planet version over the core version?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Robby
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________
>>>>>>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>>>>>>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________
>>>>>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>>>>>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>