[racket] Planet2 questions

> In the context of packages, does it make sense to refer to a package
> name without a major version number, given that major versions are
> incompatible?
>
> I think the reasons we have to refer to package names would all require
> a major version, and so I agree with the way the current design simply
> folds the version number into the package name (and where package
> authors normally abbreviate the major version 1 as an empty string).
>
> In this view, the version specified in a package's "info.rkt" is really
> a minor version number, and the comparison works out as you suggest.
>

The only reason I brought it up is that naming things is hard, and it
seems like it would be a pain to come up with a new package name every
time an incompatibility is introduced. Unless the naming convention
ends up being something like `package-name.1', or 'package-name.a', in
which case it's not really different from what I suggested, and we can
disregard my comment :).

Another thing that might warrant some consideration is pre-1.0
releases. Basically, how to version releases that come before the
first stable release. Often during development of a new library, the
API is flux, and each version ends up being incompatible until the API
finally stabilizes.

This can obviously be handled by giving different package names, but
it might be worth having a concept pre-stable packages.

I don't have a strong opinion either way, just thought it might be
worth mentioning.

-Walter