On Feb 18, 2004, at 10:29 AM, Lex Spoon wrote:
>
> Right, you beat me to it.  We can have a SqueakMap repository for each
> version of Squeak.  Then, the "RB" package in 3.6 is then different 
> from
> the one for 3.7, and really we end up with multiple streams of package
> development.  You can populate each new SqueakMap repository by copying
> the old one.
>
> In practice, the packages for older versions like 3.6 will just sit
> there and not be updated.  But that is fine: packages in older "stable"
> versions like 3.6 should not be seeing very many updates, and using an
> old "unstable" version like 3.1 is silly.
>

Perfect! That goes with you suggestion on the SuperSwiki as well... SM 
would then need an option that allowed the browsing of an alternative 
SM server, so that when you want to grab an old package and port it to 
newer version, it would be easier... not to mention a local SM server 
for say, company packages, and the public open source ones.

Brian