But each package may potentially want to have its own subclasses of
PackageInfo for special configuration and/or additional information?

Therefore, we don't need to be adding any state to PackageInfo.



On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>
> On 26.07.2012, at 16:26, H. Hirzel wrote:
>
>> On 7/15/12, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Create a subclass of PackageInfo for your package.
>>
>>
>> PackageInfo subclasses
>>  gives
>>
>> {MCDirtyPackageInfo . MCEmptyPackageInfo . MCMockPackageInfo}
>>
>> And there seems to be no place of putting a description of the package there.
>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> Chris,
>> Could you please do an example e.g. for Monticello-Base and Monticello-Resitory?
>>
>> -- Hannes
>
>
> If having a comment for each package is desirable then we could add it to PackageInfo just like it already supports scripts.
>
> - Bert -
>
>