Yes, it probably should be a class variable.

As Bert writes earlier in this thread I have to create a subclass of
PackageInfo for my package.
So far it has not actually been used much, only three subclasses. As
Enrico points out this is crucial information to have an entry into
the system.

And the place to put it seems to be a class variable 'description'.
Like in Seaside components.

--Hannes



On 7/28/12, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Therefore, we don't need to be adding any state to PackageInfo.
>
> Just to clarify - I'm not opposed to adding an inst-var, I just don't
> see the need.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26.07.2012, at 16:26, H. Hirzel wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/15/12, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Create a subclass of PackageInfo for your package.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PackageInfo subclasses
>>>>  gives
>>>>
>>>> {MCDirtyPackageInfo . MCEmptyPackageInfo . MCMockPackageInfo}
>>>>
>>>> And there seems to be no place of putting a description of the package
>>>> there.
>>>> Am I missing something?
>>>>
>>>> Chris,
>>>> Could you please do an example e.g. for Monticello-Base and
>>>> Monticello-Resitory?
>>>>
>>>> -- Hannes
>>>
>>>
>>> If having a comment for each package is desirable then we could add it to
>>> PackageInfo just like it already supports scripts.
>>>
>>> - Bert -
>>>
>>>
>
>