diegogomezdeck at consultar.com wrote:

>>Julian Fitzell <julian at beta4.com> wrote:
>>
>>>goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
>>>
>>>><diegogomezdeck at consultar.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>One obvious but notSooGood solution is to create a small piece of
>>>>>code that remove from out changes all the modifications we made to
>>>>>the just-removed classes.  The dark point with these aproach is
>>>>>we'll lose a lot of cleaning.
>>>>
>>>>But wait - shouldn't your changes simply be routed to the maintainer
>>>>of said packages?
>>>>Then they can update their packages and the rest is released on the
>>>>update stream.
>>>
>>>Yes, presumably if you file in the replacement package with DVS, then
>>>any changes you make will go to those packages and then you can send
>>>diffs of the DVS packages to the maintainers.
>>
>>Right! If they use DVS of course. But that's true - sounds rather easy.
>>As it should be.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how to it'll work.
> 
> I see a (big?) problem: What is Morphic? It's not so easy to define wich
> parts of the image is Morphic or not.  It's not only a problem of "big-
> mess", morphic is an ortogonal concept to a lot of packages.
> 
> IMO, it's really difficult to define the borders between Morphic and
> TheRest.
> 
> Can you give me more details how you think DVS can help here?

Diego,

I wasn't so much saying that you need to use DVS (though it would be 
great as Daniel said if Morphic could be pulled out into a clean DVS 
package).  What I meant is that if you file in the packages that replace 
the removed stuff (I think they're in DVS format are they not?) then any 
changes you make to those packages will continue to get filed out as 
part of those packages so you can easily send the changes back to the 
package maintainers.

Julian