Hi!

"Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?st=E9phane_ducasse?= <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> > > But... that is the job of SM! You simply register a corresponding SM
> > > package, fill in the PI field - and bam - you now have description,
> > > owner, comaintainers, releases yaddayadda. I thought this was obvious.
> > 
> > NO!
> > Why this information should be on a server.
> > Class comments and methods comments are not on a server.
> 
> Having a server is okay, but:
> 
> 	1. Each image should have the comments that pertain to that specific
> image.  If you are working in Squeak 3.5, you should not see packages
> and package comments that only make sense in Squeak 3.9.
> 	
> 	2. There should be the possibility of local changes.  I should be able
> to hack the Compiler package in my own image, without it messing up
> other people's images.  
> 
> 	3. It needs to work even when you are not connected to the server.
> 	
> It seems simpler, getting started, to store the data directly in the
> image and then work out a way to put these things into package files
> that we send around.  Just like with class comments and method comments.
>  The server can then provide an optional mechanism to share stuff
> between multiple users.

Package comment - fine. I agree.
Reimplementing the whole meta model around packages that SM provides?

No, I don't agree.

regards, Göran