Douglas Brebner wrote:
> Joshua Gargus wrote:
>   
>> Keith Hodges wrote:
>>     
>>> Andreas Raab wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Keith Hodges wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> Looks like you have forked PackageInfo now...  
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> For factual reference, I used the version that was in Croquet because
>>>> it has seen years of use and I trust it. It itself is based on
>>>> PackageInfo-avi.20 which is straight from the horse's mouth as far as
>>>> I am concerned.
>>>>
>>>> If you have a better version, how about contributing it to the trunk?
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Absolutely not.
>>>
>>> MC is maintained as an external package, once for all, the repository is
>>> open. It is not maintained in trunk, nor should it be.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Can you explain why?  Consider the following (please grant me the
>> first point, in the interest of a meaningful discussion):
>>
>>
>>     
> Isn't keeping MC in the trunk directly contradictory to the whole point
> of seperating the image into packages and splitting them out? 

No.  It will still be loadable/unloadable; it will be included for
convenience.  You could create a Squeak image without a compiler too,
but this would be inconvenient for the "default" Squeak image (the one
you first find when looking on squeak.org).

> Won't it
> also make using MC in other smalltalks gratituously harder?
>
>   

I don't see why.  All that it means for a package to be "in the trunk"
is to be in a particular Monticello repository.  In order for a package
to be compatible across Squeak versions (and even with other
Smalltalks), somebody has to put in effort.  The effort required is not
reduced by simply storing the package in a repository "outside the trunk".

Cheers,
Josh





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20090716/643cfc90/attachment.htm