[racket] deprecating planet version using para. in planet description?

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 6 09:38:33 EST 2013

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Neil Van Dyke <neil at neilvandyke.org> wrote:

>  Robby Findler wrote at 12/05/2013 04:02 PM:
> You could release a new planet version that required the pkg version (this
> works especially well when the pkg is in the main-distribution tho). I
> recommend a core version dependency in that case tho.
> For this approach, would one need the reference to a new-package-system
> package to satisfy in perpetuity the guarantees of the PLaneT package's
> version numbers?  The first guarantee I mean is that a particular absolute
> version number spec always gets the same immediate code.  The second
> guarantee is of backward compatibility within the same major version.
>  Neither of these guarantees is always satisfied perfectly within the
> current PLaneT implementation, but I think any PLaneT package that is
> changed to be a wrapper for a new-package-system package should honor the
> guarantees to the extent that the non-wrapper package would've.
I am imagining this approach for people that want to transition away from
planet for new code, but not just drop support for planet directly.

And just to be clear, there are no plans to stop supporting planet from our
end. These messages are more intended to be about helping to make a
transition if that's what you want to do.

>  You could also remove it from both planet repositories to just hide it
> from planet depending on your desire to support older versions of racket.
> Wouldn't that break all code that has a direct or indirect dependency on
> any version of that PLaneT package?
Yes. I should have been more clear: there are a number of packages on
planet that currently just don't work and for which there are new package
system variants. Depending on the authors' intentions to support those
planet packages, this may be a good idea. I'm specifically thinking about
authors that expect only newcomers to come across them and then to get
broken code and they would rather those newcomers just didn't find the
planet packages and instead found the new package system's code, this might
be a viable approach.

>  On Thursday, December 5, 2013, John Clements wrote:
>> It looks to me like the easiest way to mark a PLaneT version of some code
>> as deprecated in favor of a package version (as e.g. rsound) is to add a
>> paragraph to the description metadata on the PLaneT website.  I've done
>> this for a few of my packages, but as I don't see anyone else doing it, I
>> wanted to check and see whether there was general agreement on a different
>> mechanism.
> To mark a PLaneT package as deprecated, I would release a new minor
> version that puts a note about the deprecation as the first
> sentence/paragraph of the documentation.
> Also noting the deprecation in the package metadata that shows up in
> package lists on the PLaneT site might save some people a little time.  If
> I did that, it would be in addition to the note in the documentation.

Yes, this would also be great.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20131206/6f78dcd9/attachment.html>

Posted on the users mailing list.