On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> I don't know, I don't think forcing people is the issue here. Most
> people loading code are loading it either as part of their own code
> management system, whatever that may be, or from SM, or from the
> FileList. Whatever tools we make available there, will determine what
> people can use.

Very true.  But once we have DVS packages always being loaded in by DVS,
and not as changesets, is there any benefit left to using chunk format?
Moving to an uambiguously declarative format (SIF, Rosetta, something
else) would IMO be better than sticking with a declarative interpretation
of a format designed to be imperative.  We lose a bit of tool support (the
ChangeList, etc), but it might be worth it.

What I'm thinking about doing is taking the existing Monticello code model
(which is much better than what DVS uses), dropping (or ignoring) the
merging and versioning parts, and mapping it to some to-be-determined
textual representation.  This could then be plugged into the existing DVS
UI, and we'd be in much better shape than we are now to look for things
like overridden methods.

Avi