Hi all!

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?st=E9phane_ducasse?= <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> > Yes, I like that. And here is some reasoning too:
> >
> > 1. I really don't like Packages that have "loose classes" in other 
> > class
> > categories. Or to put it in another way - why would two different
> > packages have classes in the same class category? I mean, sure - I can
> > construct a case - but isn't it more confusing than helping? I vote for
> > a Package to simply be what PI is today - that way it still is strictly
> > hierarchical and simple.
> 
> But we should be able to add comment and other information to packages.

But... that is the job of SM! You simply register a corresponding SM
package, fill in the PI field - and bam - you now have description,
owner, comaintainers, releases yaddayadda. I thought this was obvious.

> > 2. Renaming PIs? Perhaps I didn't understand, but what is hard about
> > that? Just rename the class cats and the PI - done. Can't see the real
> > hard part there, but I have just had my morning coffee and perhaps it
> > hasn't kicked in yet. :)	
> 
> Apparently you did not try to rename a package having  extensions :)

Ah, forgot that. Well, not *too* hard to fix though. :)
 
> > So... yes, yes, yes. Let's use the current PI. And Alex doesn't have to
> > worry - if he brings forward a cool new replacement - fine. We can
> > probably easily adopt it.
> 
> Yes
> Go

Goodie.
 
> > Yeah. Now - just to be short - the nice thing with my Namespace
> > implementation was that it didn't change much at all for the programmer
> > while still offering quite a few benefits usuallu found in "classic"
> > namespaces. And hey - besides a few snafus in the current 
> > implementation
> > - it WORKS. TODAY. :)
> 
> But what are you talking about? Please do not mess up the discussion.

Couldn't help myself. :) Btw, you still haven't explained to me why you
didn't like it? I would be interested in hearing that - but yes, in
another thread or private email.
 
regards, Göran