[plt-scheme] If With No Else and Other Changes

It is possible, but it appears that it cannot be done via the web form.

Jacob?

Robby

On Jan 31, 2008 11:03 AM, Doug Williams <m.douglas.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> With PLaneT, if we go to a new major revision of our packages, can we still
> make modifications to the previous major versions?  I haven't seen any way
> to do it.  If we can't, it would preclude enhancing (or bug fixing) the
> previous versions.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Robby Findler <robby at cs.uchicago.edu>
> wrote:
> > This has been something we've been discussing internally. Currently
> > people seemed to think that keeping a single repository for both v3xx
> > and v4.x is a good idea.
> >
> > I'm not too sure myself, but I think that in the case below, the way
> > to go is to make a major version increment when you add v4
> > compatibility and then set a version requirement on that new major
> > version.
> >
> > Implicit in this is the observation that once you start using v4
> > goodies (like #lang, etc) you cannot keep v3xx compatibility.
> >
> > Robby
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 31, 2008 10:46 AM, Doug Williams <m.douglas.williams at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > I'm not sure if others are as confused as me, but for someone with
> > > substantial sized collections in PLaneT that wants a smooth migration to
> V4
> > > without breaking V3.72 it isn't 'obvious' how to do this in the context
> of
> > > PLaneT.  Should we use the new languages (like scheme or scheme/base or
> > > scheme/gui)?  If we do so, will we break our packages in V3.72 (which is
> > > definitely not a good thing to do)?  Should we continue to use the
> mzscheme
> > > language until the transition is complete?  Should we maintain two
> version
> > > of our collections - one for V3.72 (distributed via PLaneT) and another
> for
> > > V4 (distributed by some other mechanism)?  I'm already having to
> maintain
> > > separate documentation mechanisms across the two as we go to Scribble
> and I
> > > haven't seen how we're going to smoothly merge these across the V3 -> V4
> > > boundary.  This is probably enough of a list for now.
> > >
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Robby Findler <robby at cs.uchicago.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Sorry for not writing this in my first reply.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 30, 2008 2:34 PM, Doug Williams <m.douglas.williams at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What other constructs might bite us?
> > > >
> > > > See plt/doc/release-notes/mzscheme/MzScheme_4.txt.
> > > >
> > > > hth,
> > > > Robby
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>