No subject

-----------------------

I think the big-picture plans are probably uncontroversial.

When it comes to the details of exactly how things work and how things
are named, I'm hearing less confidence or less agreement. Some of us
are steeped in the issues and have different opinions. Others seem
overwhelmed by the details, unsure of how it will all work out, and
disconcerted by conflicting messages from others who seem to
understand the issues. For people who are in that last group or close
to it, it may seem overall that we're moving into a new package system
too quickly.

The decision to split Racket into packages has stressed our
development process, because now we're tackling two hard problems
instead of one: developing a package system and using it on a big pile
of code. I think a good case could be made that the package system is
too new to trust with a big shift. At the same time, my sense is that
waiting until the package system is good enough isn't how software
works; a piece of software becomes good enough for its job only when
you make it do its job.