goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:

> Julian Fitzell  wrote:
>
> >hmm... perhaps... I was assuming the packages would have to be
> >DVS-installed to determine the package that a method was in.  It
> >shouldn't be to hard to determine what package it came from in that
> >case.  I admit if they weren't DVS packages it would be a lot harder :)
>
>
> Yes, the only problem I see (if SM is installed) is to figure out what
> package we should refer to.
> Simply picking the class of the offending method sounds reasonable but
> which package does it belong to?
> Sure, using DVS makes it easy, but for the others... Hmmm. Perhaps you
> could do a dirty trick by looking in the changelog or something... But
> then it would have been nice if SM also marked before filing in a
> package and not just after.
>
> regards, Göran

Yup, my solution definitely requires DVS to work.  Might be another 
incentive for people to use it though! ;)  Seriously, though, the whole 
point of DVS is so you know what package code belongs in.  If you don't 
use DVS, by implication, you *don't* know what package it belongs in so 
people can't really expect that kind of extra functionality.

If you can make it work for changesets somehow, then great, but you did 
say that changesets would be supported in SM, not that they would 
support *all* features... that's just not reasonable.

cheers,

Julian

-- 
julian at beta4.com
Beta4 Productions (http://www.beta4.com)