Re: [Chicken-users] A question regarding "hidden" eggs

[Jörg F . Wittenberger]

Am 18.01.2016 um 14:13 schrieb Christian Kellermann:
> * Jörg F. Wittenberger <address@hidden> [160116 19:35]:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I feel the need to have some space to stash away temporary glue code.
>>
> 
> Is this about code you want to be able to chicken-install but noone
> else should see it?

Precisely.

>> Ideally the current version of it is always empty and not of interest to
>> anyone.  As documentation always lags behind, it is empty with high
>> probability.  However development is not ideal.
> 
> I don't understand this.

I have some code to be ripped out of context and made available as eggs.
 This code is well tested and comes with dependencies to things I would
ideally rather replace with code from other eggs.  For transition and
backward compatibility, I want to import some things from the "hidden" code.

So it's all deprecated code right from the beginning.

>> Not listing as in being marked as "(hidden)" in the meta file is
>> apparently what I want.
> 
> That does not make sense to me, if people can install it but should
> not use it, what is it good for?

Sure use it.  But not only indirect.  It should be outright clear and
obvious that nothing implemented there is supposed to stay and be
supported in future versions.  Nothing will be documented for re-use.  I
don't want anybody to build anything at it an then complain when I
eventually got around to remove something.

> 
> If it is some code that your published eggs rely on, it will be public
> in a way. Listing it in an egg index or hide it then does not make a
> lot of a difference to me.
> 
> But maybe I misunderstand what you really want to get done.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christian
> 
> 
> --
> May you be peaceful, may you live in safety, may you be free from
> suffering, and may you live with ease.
>