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

From: Philip McGrath <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 14:33:36 -0500

Hi,

On Friday, November 18, 2022 3:26:27 AM EST zimoun wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 at 08:01, Liliana Marie Prikler 
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> >> -        #:scope (list "gnu/packages/racket.scm")))
> >> +        #:scope (list "gnu/packages/chez.scm"
> >> +                      "gnu/packages/racket.scm")))
> > 
> > I'm not sure whether this accurately captures the intent of teams.
> > Yes, chez-scheme is required in Racket's bootstrap, but the only
> > "legal" changes to Racket's variant also affect racket.scm.  On the
> > other hand, the Racket team would weigh in on changes that only affect
> > the Chez side, which imho is unwarranted.
> 
> Why not?  Considering the only person part of the Racket team is Philip,
> the false-positive seems acceptable, no?
> 

I don't have a strong view: feel free to just drop this patch for now if you 
feel it needs more discussion but the others are ready to merge.

Since the chez-scheme-for-racket package inherits from the chez-scheme 
package, any change to the chez-scheme package will affect racket, racket-
minimal, and racket-vm-cs.

I could certainly imagine having a Chez team that doesn't necessarily care 
about Racket. Likewise, in both languages, I imagine there could be people 
interested in packages that use the language but who wouldn't necessarily be 
interested in the packaging of the compilers and run-time systems themselves. 
But, since no one else has signed on and I've made the majority of changes to 
both files in the last two years, designing a more fine-grained team structure 
seemed premature.

I guess I've also thought of teams as less "would way in on" changes and more 
as "would like to be CC'ed about" them. I'd rather get a little more email 
than miss relevant changes (even though I can't keep up with the whole patches 
mailing list).

-Philip