Alex Shinn writes:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
> > At the page break 73-74, I wonder how appropriate it is to promote
> > the old Indiana repository. Shouldn't it be labelled historical
> > and not-up-to-date-in-any-way if it's mentioned at all? I'm sure
> > schemers.org links to it, and schemers.org seems to be the good
> > starting point now.
>
> We'll revisit this.  I actually wanted to expand that section
> further but there aren't a lot of non-partisan resources out there.
> I think the freenode #scheme IRC channel may be worth mentioning.

The problem is that the Indiana repo is fourteen years out of date:
not maintained since 1998. It should not be advertised as if it was up
to date. It doesn't know anything about r6rs, for example. It provides
a 1998 version of SCM as its latest addition when there has been a
relase in 2010.

The repo itself makes its status perfectly clear. It also points to
schemers.org as an alternative. The draft r7rs text (inherited from
r5rs, I think) needs an update. Perhaps suggest schemers.org as a
reasonably _current_ starting point (it also looks attractive and has
a sense of humour) and in the end mention the Indiana report for its
_historical_ value.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports