[bug#59322] [PATCH v2 4/4] etc: teams: Add chez.scm to Racket team's scope.

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Am Samstag, dem 19.11.2022 um 18:52 -0500 schrieb Philip McGrath:
> [...]
> Is there a requirement that teams' scopes be disjoint? In other
> words, is there any reason "gnu/packages/chez.scm" shouldn't be in
> scope for both the racket team and a potential chez team?
Not necessarily, but I think exceptions should be well argued.  For
instance, it would make sense for a change in Emacs' build system to
reach both Emacs and core maintainers.  In practice however, core does
not have any build system in their scope, which strengthens my argument
for disjoint groups.

> Another factor that might be relevant: Matthew Flatt tells me he is
> actively working with the Chez Scheme maintainers to merge the two
> branches.  I'm not involved in these discussions myself: my
> understanding is that details are still being worked out, and I don't
> know what the time frame will be, but from what I'm told it's gone
> from "not in the foreseeable future" to "will happen".
> 
> (There's no plan to synchronize the release cycles, and Racket will
> continue to rely on unstable Chez system functions and to have the
> Chez version form part of its ABI, so we will likely continue to have
> a chez-scheme-for-racket package, but it should be a much simpler
> transformation to use a particular pre-release version.)
Depending on how well that goes, that'd be one headache less.  I'll be
cautiously optimistic and hope that Racket won't do another Zuo and
publish a subtree without release tags.

> After the merge, we should be able to bootstrap upstream Chez Scheme
> via Racket as we currently do with chez-scheme-for-racket, at which
> changes to Racket will also potentially impact Chez Scheme.
> 
> Personally, if there were more people involved, I'd organize it as
> teams for chez-and-racket-bootstrap, chez, and racket, as I'd
> initially tried to do in https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53878, but that
> especially seems like too much if they all consist of the same one
> person. If you still want a chez team, though, I guess I'm ok with
> that.
Three teams for two packages is definitely overkill.  I'd make it
either one or two, with the caveat that both of them being the same
should rest on a sound argument rather than a vague one.  If chez and
racket were interchangeable like different Common Lisp interpretations,
that'd be such an argument, or if there was a shared community not just
by virtue of bootstrapping.

> I just hope this need not delay the update to 8.7 any further.
Well, since CI already built everything and 1-3 LGTM, I went ahead and
pushed it, so you don't need to worry.

Cheers