On 6/30/05, Andreas Raab andreas.raab@gmx.de wrote:
Depends on whether you wanted to have the system fully packagized or not. This is a key question - I have no interest whatsover in another "partially packaged" system. We have this already.
I'm certainly with you on having a fully packagized system; the main question I have is whether we want to fully packagize it eagerly or lazily. You've done a great job of getting the bulk of the packaging done, and that may be enough to start with; as long as we have a fully packagized *process*, the rest can come along at a slower rate. That is, if there's no way to submit a FIX or ENH, or get an update from the stream, for code that's not packagized, then the first time we need to actually change one of those loose methods, it will get dealt with - and probably more thoughtfully than if we try to do them all at once now. Another strategy might be to recategorize them to all be in an *orphaned package rather than creating tons of tiny packages, with the rule that when you modify a method in that package, you need to try to move it out (so it should shrink over time).
But that's just my $0.02 - if others are less inclined to punt, and want to do it properly up front, great. It might not turn out to be that much work.
No! Please, no! Not "as if" - make it the real thing! What is the problem with just downloading the package and installing it? If people don't want to wait they can always just grab a preloaded image.
Fair enough. I suspect most people will just grab the preloaded one anyway.
Avi