On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Leif Andersen wrote:
>
> So, I really don't care how it work. Logo is fine, seperate website is
> fine. Checkboxes that lets users say what packages come in are fine.
> Yelp reviews are fine (although if we go down that route can we also
> add Edit buttons. ;) )
I
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> While we were talking about "core" and non-"core"packages, there was
> controversy. Now that we have changed words, and are talking about
> "rings", we seem to be happier. What a difference a word makes! Or
> is there a technical distinctio
Jack Firth wrote on 01/31/2017 03:11 PM:
If the package build server and catalog hosted built packages for
multiple Racket versions, I think we could go a long ways towards
removing the need to split packages completely.
If there's important requirements driving that, and if that's a good
sol
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 11:25:31 AM UTC-8, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> For the benefit of the tightwad people, packages could optionally
> include metadata about any docs and tests that can be stripped --
> anything nonessential to "run-only" the package. This metadata could be
> used by eit
Greg Trzeciak wrote on 01/31/2017 01:24 PM:
Speaking of packages - there seems to be a trend recently in racket packages to create
separate packages for main, lib, doc, test, etc. This causes an artificial inflation in
available packages and IMHO may cause some confusion for newcomers as instea
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:29:44 PM UTC+1, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> I think it would be nice to change the frontend to collapse them
> together in some meaningful way to help read the catalog.
>
> Jay
+1
That would solve the issue.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
I think it would be nice to change the frontend to collapse them
together in some meaningful way to help read the catalog.
Jay
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Greg Trzeciak wrote:
>> Other than package creator's convenience - is their any
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Greg Trzeciak wrote:
> Other than package creator's convenience - is their any rationale for this
> trend I don't see?
Actually, it is INCONVENIENT for the creator. It provides to the users
the ability to install the library without docs (good for deployment)
or
Speaking of packages - there seems to be a trend recently in racket packages to
create separate packages for main, lib, doc, test, etc. This causes an
artificial inflation in available packages and IMHO may cause some confusion
for newcomers as instead of finding eg. "PackageX" we now get the fo
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> While we were talking about "core" and non-"core"packages, there was
> controversy. Now that we have changed words, and are talking about
> "rings", we seem to be happier. What a difference a word makes! Or
> is there a technical distinctio
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 01:37:41PM +0800, WarGrey Gyoudmon Ju wrote:
> Hello.
>
> This is one of the culture shocks that a new Racketeer would face, and so
> was I.
> But this statement makes it clear to me: Racket is an operating system that
> pretend to a programming language;
Much like emacs,
Hello.
This is one of the culture shocks that a new Racketeer would face, and so
was I.
But this statement makes it clear to me: Racket is an operating system that
pretend to a programming language;
Yes, it may totally be a kind of over reading here.
Say, I do not care if a manual page is the on
I was also going to suggest the ring system as a way of giving more
information without imposing an unnecessary artificial distinction. In
general I'm enthusiastic about the benefits of not having a sharp dividing
line, but it would be useful to show more clearly in the documentation
which packages
Rather than splitting "core packages" from "community packages", what if we
used the package ring system? [1] We could establish a way for the Racket
community to bless packages with "ring zero" status, then provide a --catalog
argument to Scribble to lookup ring information in when deciding how
14 matches
Mail list logo