On Apr 16, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Stuart Sierra wrote:
> On Apr 16, 12:53 pm, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> What does 1.0 mean to you? Are we there yet? Any recommendations for >> the organization of the release branches, patch policy etc? > > I would like to see, concurrent with 1.0, some kind of library > management system. As noted before, contrib is already getting > hairy. We have dozens of little libraries floating around on GitHub. > Having you, Rich, maintain the list of libraries on clojure.org is not > sustainable. We don't need a fully-realized CPAN/RubyGem but we need > something that can scale to a few hundred authors. Dependency > management and documentation markup are components of this. +1. I worry about the cpan/gem mention, though. We're still in the java world w.r.t. build and packaging, which generally means using something like ivy/maven/svn:externals/git-submodule/etc ahead of one's build process, rather than using cpan/gem/easy_install/etc at deployment time. That said, I have no concrete suggestion, as we'll always separately pull our projects' dependencies into whatever we happen to be using as a dependency management repo (it's a bummer to not be able to run a build if some third-party repo is down, etc). Regarding documentation, I remember throwing around ideas in irc some months ago about how to fold documentation from gen-class'ed libs into a library's broader javadoc. That would be a huge boon to those using clojure to build libraries that would be transparently usable by Java developers. - Chas --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
