I would vote for a separate repository for V4.  If nothing else, it lets the collection authors explicitly specify that their collection is V4 compatible. <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Robby Findler <<a href="mailto:robby@cs.uchicago.edu">robby@cs.uchicago.edu</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">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 <div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"> On Jan 31, 2008 10:46 AM, Doug Williams <<a href="mailto:m.douglas.williams@gmail.com">m.douglas.williams@gmail.com</a>> 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 <<a href="mailto:robby@cs.uchicago.edu">robby@cs.uchicago.edu</a>> > wrote: > > Sorry for not writing this in my first reply. > > > > > > On Jan 30, 2008 2:34 PM, Doug Williams <<a href="mailto:m.douglas.williams@gmail.com">m.douglas.williams@gmail.com</a>> > wrote: > > > > > What other constructs might bite us? > > > > See plt/doc/release-notes/mzscheme/MzScheme_4.txt. > > > > hth, > > Robby > > > > </div></div></blockquote></div>