(was Re: iSqueak)

stéphane ducasse ducasse at
Tue Jun 28 21:01:53 UTC 2005

this was what I wanted to know and I will certainly repackage them  


>> I understand and I agree that having separated tests is good and   
>> avoid dependencies. Now
>> I do not understand the naming conventions. I miss something but I  
>> do  not know what.
>> Why the tests of Kernel-Chronology are not simply
>> KernelChronology-Tests?
>> Because MC would put them under Kernel?
>> but we could have a separate package for KernelChronologyTests?
> Because creating fifty packages for each and every category ending  
> with "-Test" wasn't TSTTCPW. The simplest thing was to reclassify  
> the classes so we have a "Kernel" package and a "KernelTests"  
> package, a "Collection" package and a "CollectionTests" package etc.
> Again keep in mind that the goal of this exercise was to *fully*  
> packagize the system - and because of this some compromises had to  
> be made. If you want to make all of these separate packages, by all  
> means, feel free to do so. But that was out of my scope.
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas

More information about the Packages mailing list