On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> [FWIW, I really dislike those "cute" codenames. They're semi-"fun" in
> some projects where they're not used for much more than the
> announcements, but Ubuntu not only uses them thoroughly, they came up
> with that two-word convention...]
G
Hendrik Boom wrote at 08/04/2011 08:22 AM:
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 10:45:59PM -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
(e.g., to reflect huge changes, or for marketing).
(There was never an instance of the latter, AFAIR.)
The name change from PLT Scheme to Racket sounded like marketing to me
50 minutes ago, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 10:45:59PM -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> >
> > > (e.g., to reflect huge changes, or for marketing).
> >
> > (There was never an instance of the latter, AFAIR.)
>
> The name change from PLT Scheme to Racket sounded like marketing to
> m
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 10:45:59PM -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> > (e.g., to reflect huge changes, or for marketing).
>
> (There was never an instance of the latter, AFAIR.)
The name change from PLT Scheme to Racket sounded like marketing to me.
-- hendrik
_
Two hours ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Eli Barzilay wrote at 08/03/2011 10:45 PM:
> > The best way to deal with these is to use a precise version number
> > (even if it's an unreleased four-part version) with the result of
> > `version->integer' from `version/utils'.
>
> I guess I don't mind soundi
On 08/03/2011 08:54 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
"Affirmative, sir. Staging servers have been validated with Racket
version Randy Rottweiler, and are ready for production deployment."
You will send this release name suggestion to Mark Shuttleworth. If he
knows what's good for him, he'll take it
Eli Barzilay wrote at 08/03/2011 10:45 PM:
These are the guidelines we're using:
OK. Thanks for the info. Sounds reasonable.
when, say, I have a dependency on "racket/places", and want to
specify the minimum Racket version I require (i.e., "5.2" rather
than "5.1.2").
The best way
15 minutes ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> I'm kinda curious why this was 5.1.2 rather than 5.2. Perhaps someone
> could explain the version number conventions when they get a chance?
These are the guidelines we're using:
The set of features in a release as compared to the previous normal
relea
Congratulations to PLT on another great Racket release.
I'm kinda curious why this was 5.1.2 rather than 5.2. Perhaps someone
could explain the version number conventions when they get a chance? I
don't know enough about the current release process, but were I to
guess... Making each periodi
Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Racket version 5.1.2 is now available from
>
> http://racket-lang.org/
> [...]
Hello,
the Racket Portable package, for those who want to carry a Win32 Racket
installation on removable media, has been updated to the new version:
https://bitbucket.org/chust/racket-portab
10 matches
Mail list logo
