No subject

-----------------------<br>
<br>
I think the big-picture plans are probably uncontroversial.<br>
<br>
When it comes to the details of exactly how things work and how things<br>
are named, I&#39;m hearing less confidence or less agreement. Some of us<br=
>
are steeped in the issues and have different opinions. Others seem<br>
overwhelmed by the details, unsure of how it will all work out, and<br>
disconcerted by conflicting messages from others who seem to<br>
understand the issues. For people who are in that last group or close<br>
to it, it may seem overall that we&#39;re moving into a new package system<=
br>
too quickly.<br>
<br>
The decision to split Racket into packages has stressed our<br>
development process, because now we&#39;re tackling two hard problems<br>
instead of one: developing a package system and using it on a big pile<br>
of code. I think a good case could be made that the package system is<br>
too new to trust with a big shift. At the same time, my sense is that<br>
waiting until the package system is good enough isn&#39;t how software<br>
works; a piece of software becomes good enough for its job only when<br>
you make it do its job.<br>
<br>