3.9alpha update stream (was Re: source.squeakfoundation.org)

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at techunix.technion.ac.il
Thu Jun 30 12:41:00 UTC 2005

Haven't thought this through. I also lean towards the former, because it 
seems easier to keep track of.


Avi Bryant wrote:
> On 6/30/05, Daniel Vainsencher <danielv at techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>>Under the assumption that the placing of code under packages is done
>>simply by creating an MC package for every otherwise-uncategorized
>>method, and therefore is no work at all (I think that's what Andreas
>>says that doIt does, if not, that's not hard to write):
>>I think its better to have everything in packages, so people don't meet
>>technical problems such as "I changed a bunch of methods, uploaded the
>>packages that changed in MC, but one of my methods didn't appear".
>>The down side is we might have a couple of dumb packages, but we'll be
>>moving code between packages forever anyway (detangling), so who cares?
> Ok.  So is it better to have a single dumb package ("Orphaned") or
> lots of little dumb packages?  I lean towards the former.
> Avi

More information about the Packages mailing list