> >> This was the decisions that two of us (I mean me and you) took :).
> >>
> >> Categories are mapped one-to-one to RPackages. The reason is that this is the simplest path to replace categories in the system.
> >
> >
> > Doru I'm afraid that it will not work because it means that suddenly people will have to change all the configurationOf.
> > We should come up with a smooth transition phase (now this is true that if we could get rid of categories it would be good)
>
> PackageInfo and RPackage cannot coexist?
>
> In any case, it will not be a problem for me to update all my config with this new schema.
>
> Alexandre
>
>
>
> >
> >> The second step is to map the current Monticello package to RPackages so that we can load existing Monticello packages.
> >>
> >> The third step is to provide saving only of individual RPackages. Thus, Monticello should not save multiple RPackages into one Monticello package, but only make it easy to store each one in a separate package.
> >
> >
> > the problem is that it implies that we will have to change all the configurationOfXXX (or we should shrink all the packages
> >
> >>
> >> Once this is achieved, we can merge an RPackage with a Monticello package, which means that the package that you see in the image is directly storable in a transparent way.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Doru
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1 Mar 2011, at 22:44, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi cyrille/doru and others.
> >>>
> >>> I do not understand why
> >>> RPackage organizer packages contains System?
> >>>
> >>> In fact all the categories are mapped to packages and I wonder why.
> >>> I imagine that this is to avoid to have mostSpecific* logic of packageInfo,
> >>> but it means that in such a case we should merge categories to get back the package we have right now
> >>> else we will end up with loading/saving problems.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Stef
> >>
> >> --
> >> www.tudorgirba.com
> >>
> >> "Presenting is storytelling."
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>