About MC for managing the image

[Andreas Raab]

Avi Bryant wrote:
[... snip ...]
> Within that pool of definitions, package boundaries are unknown and  
> ignored.  The load order is determined for the pool as a whole, using  
> the rules I mentioned earlier.  So if you throw a whole bunch of  
> packages into the pool, it will figure out a load ordering at method/ 
> class granularity, rather than at package granularity.

Thanks. That explains it, and I can see why this would be useful in 
particular in a situation where things get moved between various packages.

> What I'm proposing and Daniel is working on is that we modify  
> MCConfiguration to use this mechanism rather than an explicit load  order.

How hard would it be to have this governed by a preference to begin 
with? I would like to find out whether a) this solves the problems Stef 
was seeing (the way I understand it they should) and b) what effect it 
would have if I just do a full update of Tweak using that mechanism 
(e.g., try to find out if would break on any of the updates we've put 
out so far).

Cheers,
   - Andreas