Establishing a Scheme registry: making a decision Lassi Kortela (04 Aug 2020 07:13 UTC)
|
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry: making a decision
hga@xxxxxx
(04 Aug 2020 10:01 UTC)
|
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry: making a decision
Lassi Kortela
(04 Aug 2020 10:30 UTC)
|
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry: making a decision
hga@xxxxxx
(04 Aug 2020 10:55 UTC)
|
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry: making a decision
Lassi Kortela
(04 Aug 2020 11:07 UTC)
|
Establishing a Scheme registry: making a decision Lassi Kortela 04 Aug 2020 07:13 UTC
Summary of the discussion in the last thread: - No prior art found in other languages. - Publishing registries in a series of periodically finalized SRFIs, keeping a draft open for new submissions, is controversial. - Relying on Git is controversial since Git hosting is seen as less permanent than the SRFI document stash itself. - Using fancier software was considered too complicated. In an attempt to minimize effort and controversy and stick to established stuff, I'd like to suggest that we simply make a "registry" subdirectory in the <https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-common> Git repo and put some S-expression files there: - SRFI Git repos need to be archived anyway. - srfi-common is a particularly important repo since it has the whole SRFI website and metadata for all SRFIs, so we are unlikely to lose it. - We can have a Scheme script that turns the registry into HTML page(s) published on the SRFI website. Arthur regenerates the website from srfi-common whenever a SRFI's status is updated, so hooking the registry generator into that update cycle would be easiest way to ensure the web copy of the registry stays updated. - A dump of all SRFI data, "srfi.tgz" is published at <https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi.tgz>. The registry source files could be included in it. What do you think?