Four more repositories, and the tables that have to know about them - #779
Open
tamnd wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Four more repositories, and the tables that have to know about them#779tamnd wants to merge 1 commit into
tamnd wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
DX5 had .NET as the only new binding and put Kotlin and Scala inside zu-java as idiom layers. That is the right shape for the question of how much work a Kotlin caller saves by not writing Optional everywhere, and the wrong one for the question of how the caller gets the dependency. A Kotlin project takes a Kotlin artifact. A Scala project takes one built for its binary version, and 3 and 2.13 are two artifacts whatever anybody wishes. Neither wants to be told the thing they depend on is a package inside a jar named for another language. Swift and Dart are new for the reason .NET was new. A language with no binding is not a language with nobody using this engine, it is a language whose users read zu.h and write a binding each, and none of those has a misuse suite or a leak job or a corpus run. Two of them get the interrupt rule wrong and one gets the free order wrong, and the reports arrive here either way. So zu-kotlin, zu-scala, zu-swift and zu-dart are repositories, at tier 2, which is where zu-dotnet already sits and is the honest place for a binding whose first release is this milestone. Tier 1 asks for 100 on conformance and 90 on practice, and a binding earns that by having shipped rather than by having been written. The list is quoted in four places and the whole point of repos.toml is that they agree, so this is all four: the conductor's matrix, the README's client table with the tier on it, the consumers in artifacts.toml, and clients.toml with the page it renders. The counts in the prose move with them, nine repositories to thirteen and eight dispatched to twelve, and the collect step's thirty-one empty results are fifty-one. Toolchain pins for the four languages are not here. A pinned Swift that nothing builds with is a version nobody is holding to anything, and they arrive with the repositories that use them. Refs #171.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
DX5 (#171) had .NET as the only new binding and put Kotlin and Scala inside zu-java as idiom layers. That is the right shape for the question of how much work a Kotlin caller saves by not writing
Optionaleverywhere, and the wrong one for the question of how the caller gets the dependency. A Kotlin project takes a Kotlin artifact. A Scala project takes one built for its binary version, and 3 and 2.13 are two artifacts whatever anybody wishes. Neither of them wants to be told the thing they depend on is a package inside a jar named for another language, and a Scala user has to be told which of the two builds is in there.Swift and Dart are new for the reason .NET was new. A language with no binding is not a language with nobody using this engine, it is a language whose users read
zu.hand write a binding each, and none of those has a misuse suite or a leak job or a corpus run.So
zu-kotlin,zu-scala,zu-swiftandzu-dartare repositories, at tier 2, which is wherezu-dotnetalready sits. Tier 1 asks for 100 on conformance and 90 on practice, and a binding earns that by having shipped rather than by having been written.The list is quoted in four places and the whole point of
repos.tomlis that they agree, so this is all four: the conductor's matrix, the README's client table with the tier on it, the consumers inartifacts.toml, andclients.tomlwith the page it renders.docs/clients/overview.mdis regenerated. The counts in the prose move with them, nine repositories to thirteen and eight dispatched to twelve, and the collect step's thirty-one empty results are fifty-one.Toolchain pins for the four languages are deliberately not here. A pinned Swift that nothing builds with is a version nobody is holding to anything, and they arrive with the repositories that use them.
What each of the four owes is on #171, and it is the same list the five existing clients are scored on rather than a shorter one for being new.