[Squeakfoundation] SqueakMap in the image (was Re: Incorporating removals & KCP stuff)

[goran.krampe at bluefish.se]

Hi Avi!

Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2003 goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> 
> > Definitely. And btw, I have come to realize that PackageInfo and SMCard
> > (future SMPackage) don't necessarily map "one to one". This is
> > important.
> 
> Can you elaborate on this?

Yes. SMPackage is tyically a "published" package made for
consumption/use of others. A PackageInfo-package may be simply an
internal component of such a published package. In short - there may be
more PackageInfos than there are SMPackages but there will typically
always be one PackageInfo per SMPackage. :-)

Looking at CVS again I would say that PackageInfo corresponds a tad with
the "modules" you can define in the CVSROOT/Modules file. Partitions of
the project suitable for the developers.

And SMPackage again - is a "public" package used by others.

So my conclusion is that both concepts are valid and disjoint but we
should try to NOT introduce any *more* of these "kinda-module-thingies"
into the Squeak world. :-)

> > Including DVS (which currently uses the same internal code as Monticello
> > I think) would be good to make sure people move over to that kind of
> > fileout much more suitable for packages.
> 
> Well, all that's actually needed for this is PackageInfo (and maybe some
> super-simple UI like right clicking on a category name in the
> PackagePaneBrowser and having a "file-out package" option).
> 
> DVS and Monticello don't share any code, by the way; they both depend on
> PackageInfo, but that's it.

Aha, ok. I remembered wrong. I thought sometime you said that you had
moved DVS over to use the same internal code that Monticello does.

regards, Göran