[plt-scheme] How best to use PLaneT?

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Grant Rettke <grettke at acm.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Carl Eastlund <cce at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
>> I currently think the best approach is to allow minor
>> version upgrades, but to bump major numbers frequently and to put
>> pressure on other package maintainers to do so (that is, if they
>> release an interface change as a minor release, report it as a bug -
>> because it is).  If we have a schism, and two different
>> interpretations of version numbers floating around, we're likely to
>> build up all kinds of incompatibility.
>
> That is, as the paper explains, the best possible model for some for a
> given audience.
>
> I prefer the model of linking against a single version of a library,
> testing it, and relying on it from here forward.
>
> Why allow for a supposedly compatible upgrade? If you didn't test that
> release, you can't count on it without testing, period.

Absolutely.  However, (a) we don't actually have a way to do that
right now, (b) you can fool yourself by trying to fake it, and (c)
I'll add that PLT Scheme is a changing language target; often packages
are upgraded to keep up with the language, and a version that doesn't
change with them becomes incompatible precisely because it won't
upgrade.  The last time that happened (a change to the contract
library affected several planet packages I use) I started allowing
automatic upgrades.

I think it's important to understand both approaches, and I won't
claim either is a 100% solution.  Use whichever you think is best and
be aware of its drawbacks.

-- 
Carl Eastlund