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 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