Ned Konz wrote:

> The problem with this is that you may be removing extension
> methods that replaced existing methods in the system.

Ah, you're right. I've been trying to avoid creating packages like that.


Avi Bryant wrote:

> Well, as a first approximation, we should be looking for a
> version that was in a category not marked with a *, and
> revert to that  Right?

I think that's exactly what I *don't* want. :) I've been working on
removal scripts for various packages. After I figure out which methods
in the system ought to be extension methods of a particular package, I
want to recategorize them appropriately, file out the package with
Monticello, and then remove the package from the system.

This removal-script stuff is just a one-shot deal, though. Maybe this
fancy reverting behaviour would be more useful in general? I don't know.


Adam