goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> 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.

Well, maybe we are just describing the same thing differently.  I
certainly did not mean to create a whole new set of accounts,
necessarily, unless that is the simplest thing that would work.

The main idea is that if *map* part of SqueakMap is not singular, then
we can simplify the way people work.  We can have separate streams of
development for 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, etc.

If you want to do it with tags, then maybe it would work to have
*exactly one* version tag on every SM card?  We would disallow having no
tag, as well as having multiple tags.  If the exact same package
actually does work in two versions, that is unusual, but you could still
make two separate SM cards for that case.

As a smaller priority,  it would be nice sometime down the line if
people can set up their own maps and then pull from multiple maps.  This
might be useful if, say, a company wants to use Squeak internally and
only share stuff within their company.  This is a quite low priority
right now I would think,  but it would be good to keep this future
possibility in mind.


-Lex