[racket-dev] should package "X" imply package "X-test"?

Well, that's already available via X-lib (plus possibly X-doc). I don't
have a strong opinion on this, but I'm not sure that's the right rationale.

Robby


On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
<samth at cs.indiana.edu>wrote:

> I agree with this. In particular, I like to be able to use libraries in
> testing code that the rest of the library doesn't depend on, and I'd like
> to not make users install those extra libraries.
>
> Sam
> On Oct 15, 2013 4:47 PM, "Matthew Flatt" <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>> We have several packages "X" that imply packages "X-lib" and "X-doc"
>> --- and that seems good to me.
>>
>> Some "X"s also imply "X-test", while other "X"s do not imply "X-test"
>> (even though "X-test" exists). We should change one of those sets to be
>> consistent with the other.
>>
>> It's important that "X-lib" and "X-test" end up in the same source
>> repository, but I don't think that "X" clients necessarily need tests
>> for "X". So, I suggest that "X" should not imply "X-test".
>>
>> Other opinions?
>>
>> _________________________
>>   Racket Developers list:
>>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>>
>
> _________________________
>   Racket Developers list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20131015/ac447266/attachment.html>