[racket-dev] experiment reorganizing the repo into packages

From: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (samth at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Tue May 28 17:44:08 EDT 2013

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> I don't know whether the "-lib"/"-docs" split is worthwhile, but it's
> part of erring on the side of breaking things apart. Maybe it makes
> more sense to keep things together and rely on binary packaging to
> reduce dependencies.

For Typed Racket, it seems worth it in one place, and isn't needed in
another.  For the core of TR, making it available without docs is
useful. I'm less sure about the contents of `typed/*`.  I suppose that
will depend on whether those packages themselves ship with

> Also worth noting is that the "unstable" collection does not work
> nicely as a package --- as should be expected. I created a few
> "unstable-" packages and imagine many more, but I'm not sure that's the
> right way to go.

I think we should just make all of `unstable` go away as part of this
transition.  It was mostly a way to work around the monolithic nature
of the collections tree, and thus has outlived its purpose.

One question -- a bunch of unstable seems to be in the
typed-racket-lib package.  Why is that?

> So, how does this split correspond to what you expected? (My guess is
> that this far too fine-grained for some of us, while others will want
> exactly this kind of flexibility.)

For me, I'd expect the `typed-racket-more` package to be smaller, and
probably to be distributed to some of its dependencies. Or perhaps
split out into things like `rackunit-typed` and `gui-typed`. Other
than that, the split makes sense to me for the code I maintain.


Posted on the dev mailing list.