Closed jeffhhk closed 3 years ago
@gregr Sounds good. Done
After you're happy with the PR but before you merge it, I am happy to squash the double moves. But when I force push to update, I'm not sure that all your comments will stay intact.
Thanks, squashing will be good.
@webyrd do you want to take a look at the new directory structure before the mass-movement of files? This is the best time to object to any of these choices. Everything is moving somewhere new.
The last thing I'm on the fence about is whether medikanren[2]
should be something simpler, like v1
and v2
. What do you all think?
Because the repo is already called mediKanren, I have a slight preference for v1 and v2, as otherwise, you have mediKanren/mediKanren which will be a pain.
Yeah, I agree with @namin .
I did think about the mediKanren/medikanren path. Here is my rationale for what I chose:
My preference is for the medikanren/medikanren2 scheme. But if others feel strongly I'm happy to go with medikanren1/medikanren2.
Oh, I didn't realize you were planning to turn this into an actual Racket package. What would be the benefit of doing so? Will it make development more complicated?
Looks good to me!
Minutes ago I realized there is a one time heads up about this change.
Minutes ago I realized there really is a “heads up” message that needs to accompany PR #53 being on master. Directories don’t exist in git. Only files. And so biolink/data and biolink2/data are totally out of git’s purview. And config.scm files are not changed tracked, by design.
So once you merge or pull, if you don’t do this you will be confused:
mv biolink/data medikanren/data
mv biolink2/data medikanren2/data
mv biolink/config.scm medikanren/
mv biolink2/config.scm medikanren2/
It's a one time thing.
Based on discussion today, I think it’s probably best to do this change in more than PR piece. I’ve prepared the first PR piece along the lines of things we covered today: