goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> Julian Fitzell <julian at beta4.com> wrote:
> 
>>Avi Bryant wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 18, 2004, at 9:29 AM, Lex Spoon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Right, you beat me to it.  We can have a SqueakMap repository for each
>>>>version of Squeak.  Then, the "RB" package in 3.6 is then different from
>>>>the one for 3.7, and really we end up with multiple streams of package
>>>>development.  You can populate each new SqueakMap repository by copying
>>>>the old one.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's a great idea.
>>
>>Exactly what I thought!
>>
>>Julian
> 
> 
> Well... I am sorry to take the exact opposite position :).
> 
> I think it would be much smarter to simply enhance the model of SM. The
> idea is that an SMPackage contains the correct "timeless" information
> about the package. Then the releases contain the rest of the information
> that may vary with releases.
> 
> Note that SM contains not only packages but accounts and soon other
> entities as well. We do not want to have these things replicated in
> multiple SMs. So no, I disagree and would instead like to think in terms
> of making the model fit our needs.
> 
> For example, why not simply use filters smarter? I fail to see what
> would need us to use multiple maps.

Oh, it's not perfect by any means.  But it is simpler and it can be done 
right now.

Even in the long term, I wonder whether the UI, etc mightn't be simpler 
by having multiple SM instances that shared an authentication database 
or something.  Not sure, but debian definitely keeps the three releases 
very separate.

Julian