> Actually, I think either way would work, because IIRC Monticello  
> doesn't actually use dependencies as a way to specify ordering,  
> simply as a way to figure out which versions of which packages to  
> load together.  It then dumps all of the methods and classes into a  
> big pool and sorts out the load order itself.  As long as you make  
> sure to load M.2 and E.2 at the same time, you should be fine.

YRC, I have long wished for packages to be loaded in depth-first order.  It
would solve the issue of out-of-order class-initialization; I actually have a
case where a package requires a class in a dependent package to already be
initialized.  Monticello calls them out of order, so I must explicitly call the
#initialize of the class in a dependent package myself from the top of
depending classs #initialize method.  Then Monticello calls it again, so I also
had to put in guard code to avoid wiping out the first init.

All those "SomeClass is undeclared" Transcript messages while loading..  They
serve no purpose, pure noise; would loading in dependent order reduce these and
thus make them more meaningful?

Beyond this though, it just makes sense doesn't it?  Since its a "dependency"
it should be fully loaded and initialized before attempting to load the
depending package, shouldn't it?  I guess I just never saw any reason not to do
it..

Regards,
  Chris