[Squeakfoundation]Harvesting infrastructure (was Re: Order of business ...)

[Avi Bryant]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Doug Way wrote:

> I haven't tried the Repository stuff yet... is it working well enough
> now that it could be used for this?  If you wanted to put something
> together on a test server, that might be interesting.

I'm going to put up a test public repository later today - just need to
write some brief docs first.

> With tweaking, it sounds like either the Repository stuff or SqueakMap
> might be a usable framework for dealing with harvesting.  The Repository
> stuff is missing some security stuff which SqueakMap has, but SqueakMap
> doesn't include actual file storage.  There are probably other
> trade-offs.  (I haven't really used either one yet enough.)

I'll definitely want to add security to the repository quite soon anyway.

> We do need this in general, although I'm not sure if it relates to
> harvesting.  I would assume most fix/enhancement submissions would be
> changesets, not packages.
>
> Or are you saying that a submission should have a way to refer to a
> package?  That would be good.  Eventually, people will need to be able
> to submit a fix to a specific package, and the harvesting may become
> more package-based.  (Although some fixes/enhancements may require
> changes to more than one package.)

>From other discussions with Ned, I think he's assuming that each fix will
be a "package" of its own (ie, have its own PackageInfo namespace).

I wouldn't mind having the repository be able to store arbitrary
associated files with each package; this could also be used to attach
changesets.  Not really sure what the interface to this would be though.
And there are other things that are higher priority (like branching).

Ideally, of course, the packages would all be in the repository, and an
ENH would just be a branch.

Avi