At Tue, 8 Jan 2013 14:46:28 -0700, Danny Yoo wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> > I've caught a bug with regards to the source locations constructed by
> > cfg-parser, but I don't know quite what the right patch is. I do know
> > what the _wrong_ patch is, so maybe that w
Yeah, I've noticed it'd be nice to have something like that too maybe
someday. :)
Robby
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Ray Racine wrote:
> Well I switched to dedicated "open in a new tab" which I do like more
> overall than 1-1 source file to window. Nothing to compare against but its
>
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> I've caught a bug with regards to the source locations constructed by
> cfg-parser, but I don't know quite what the right patch is. I do know
> what the _wrong_ patch is, so maybe that will help? :)
Ok, I needed to do a bit more work to produc
Well I switched to dedicated "open in a new tab" which I do like more
overall than 1-1 source file to window. Nothing to compare against but its
PDQ for me. Just counted, have 14 tabs open currently.
One drawback with tabs is the loss of side-by-side source, where it is easy
in Linux/Unity to le
On 01/06/2013 08:03 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
As you (hopefully) noticed, I've spent a bunch of time this release
cycle trying to improve drracket's interactivity and I'm at the point
now where I could use a little help testing. So, if you have any time to
play with the latest from git (or a night
> If you have any bug-fixes and changes that need to go in the release
> then make sure to specify that in the commit message or mail me the
> commit SHA1s.
Please see https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/211 (this is re Markdown
format render mode for Scribble):
Use Racket lexer for code block
Thanks.
We will add an explicit section on beta-elements of the release,
and the message should encourage people to try the package system.
-- Matthias
On Jan 8, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> We can't actually remove the package system, but we can leave it as
> "beta" in v5.
A few minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> We can't actually remove the package system, but we can leave it as
> "beta" in v5.3.2 --- and in that case, v5.3.2 becomes the broader
> test process for the package system.
That sounds fine.
Just now, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> I think it's probably bes
At Tue, 8 Jan 2013 09:38:44 -0500, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> A few minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> >
> > I know it is probably too late for that but can we release this one
> > as 5.3.2 w/o the package system and do so quickly?
>
> +1, FWIW.
>
> (I didn't have an opinion until Sam's post re
We can't actually remove the package system, but we can leave it as
"beta" in v5.3.2 --- and in that case, v5.3.2 becomes the broader test
process for the package system.
At Tue, 8 Jan 2013 09:31:52 -0500, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> I know it is probably too late for that but can we release th
On Jan 8, 2013 9:38 AM, "Eli Barzilay" wrote:
>
> A few minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> >
> > I know it is probably too late for that but can we release this one
> > as 5.3.2 w/o the package system and do so quickly?
>
> +1, FWIW.
>
> (I didn't have an opinion until Sam's post reminded me
A few minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> I know it is probably too late for that but can we release this one
> as 5.3.2 w/o the package system and do so quickly?
+1, FWIW.
(I didn't have an opinion until Sam's post reminded me of the domain
name issue -- it's relatively easy to resolve,
I know it is probably too late for that but can we release this one as 5.3.2
w/o the package system and do so quickly?
On Jan 8, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>> At Tue, 8 Jan 2013 08:51:03 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wro
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Tue, 8 Jan 2013 08:51:03 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>> >
>> > Please tell me if you think that this release is significant enough
>> > that it should be announced on the user
At Tue, 8 Jan 2013 08:51:03 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> >
> > Please tell me if you think that this release is significant enough
> > that it should be announced on the users list for wider testing.
>
> I think the new package syste
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>
> Please tell me if you think that this release is significant enough
> that it should be announced on the users list for wider testing.
I think the new package system (yay Jay!) is significant enough that
it should get wide testing, and th
16 matches
Mail list logo
