Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:

> Rather than these two, I would say the post to the list should contain a
> separate file for each affected package.  Either that or we need a notion
> of "bundle", because right now a .mcz file always relates only to a single
> package at a time.

It'd be nice if I didn't have to explicitly tell SM which PI packages my
SM package is interested in. When my SM package points to a well-behaved
file (like a .mcz file), SM ought to be able to figure out that
information automatically. Are we ever going to want to have SM packages
that contain multiple PI packages?

It seems to me that there's definitely a place in the universe for a
declarative multi-package code file format; there are lots of times when
we'll want to treat a cross-package patch as a single entity. If the KCP
guys do one refactoring and want to link to it from their web page, it'd
be convenient if it were a single file. If the KCP person wants to enter
a comment about the refactoring, the comment probably belongs to the
whole refactoring, not the individual per-package slices of it. When a
harvester or package maintainer goes to look at the refactoring in the
BFAV, they'll sometimes just want to see how it affects their stuff, but
sometimes they'll want to see everything.

But it doesn't matter much. I'm happy either way.


Adam