I don't know if there's consensus here yet, but it seems like the best thing is to move racket/future/visualizer into a top-level: future-visualizer. Then racket/future/trace will become future-visualizer/trace. If that sounds reasonable, I'll go ahead and move them. <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Robby Findler <<a href="mailto:robby@eecs.northwestern.edu" target="_blank">robby@eecs.northwestern.edu</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class="im">On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Matthias Felleisen <<a href="mailto:matthias@ccs.neu.edu">matthias@ccs.neu.edu</a>> wrote: > All I regret is that we have a very shallow structure now, and I think it would have helped if we had stuck to about a dozen or so categories after all. </div>I think the "modern" experience is that a flat hierarchy (or perhaps one with foo/test foo/private, etc) plus tagging / searching works very well. So maybe we should try to add some better tagging/searching instead of trying to some hierarchy in there? Robby </blockquote></div>