Hi Lex and all!

"Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 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.

I am not sure why we can't have that anyway.

> 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.

Sidenote: SMCard is now called SMPackage and has multiple
SMPackageReleases.
The categories can be applied to all SMObjects - meaning we can
*categorize the releases*.

So IMHO this is just a matter of proper categorization and rules for
categorization.
I have waited for the community to "wake up" regarding categories. I
have repeatedly asked about what categories we should have etc, but have
met little interest earlier.

Anyway, Iam working on some enhancements regarding the categorization -
both some rules we can set for them, and also better UIs of course.

...so the answer is IMHO "use the versioning categories for releases
instead of packages".
 
> 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.

This has been in my plan for a long time. Eventually I want the maps to
form a hierarchy. But this has IMHO nothing to do with stable/unstable
etc.

And I have also on purpose put in on hold until the domain model settles
down. Same thing applies to the current synch mechanism - using a full
download of the whole map as an ImageSegment. I don't intend to use that
forever - it is just that it makes the domain model evolution soooo much
easier.

> -Lex

regards, Göran