[racket-dev] experiment reorganizing the repo into packages

From: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (samth at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Thu May 30 09:01:16 EDT 2013

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> To summarize, I see our options as
>  1. Suspend the effort to reorganize our repository into packages and
>     instead start experimenting with subpackages.
>  2. Use a naming convention and keep the same kind of split as in the
>     experimental reorganization --- and decide on some initial
>     conventions ("-lib", "-doc", "-typed", and "-exe"?).
>  3. Reorganize our repository into packages, but don't try to split out
>     things that conceptually belong together but have different kinds
>     of dependencies (such as run-time code versus documentation).
> My preference in order is 2, 3, 1.

I don't think we should think of 1 as an option at this point.

I also really don't want to have Typed Racket's documentation outside
of Typed Racket's code repository, and I think it would be a mistake
to do that for other parts of Racket.  An on-point comment on this
from just yesterday in a different context:
https://twitter.com/domenic/status/339848565838983168 and I think the
same reasons that's true would make splitting repositories for code
and documentation a big mistake.

That doesn't mean that "-typed" versions of some packages doesn't make
sense, though (gui-typed, for example).

I would significantly prefer the binary packages idea to splitting the


Posted on the dev mailing list.