> In 2008 I wrote:
>
>   There is a clean 1:1 mapping between categories/protocols and
>   packages. If X is the package name, then ...
>
>   1. Category X is the core-package.
>   2. Category X-y is a sub-package y.
>   3. Protocol *X are extension methods.
>   4. Protocol *X-y is an extension to the y protocol.
>
>   I see this as a way to move from the naming conventions to a first
>   class package model. It is critical to have a browser that hides those
>   naming conventions, while still keeping them (at the moment) for
>   backward compatibility.
>
> Since there is no clean migration path, I vote for (A).
>
> When looking at Pharo today I don't see the current packaging system
> (or the lack thereof) as a major problem. The current infrastructure
> works reasonably well and does not hinder progress. What is really
> painful is that everything breaks with every release. Thus, what would
> be way more important is a module/namespace system so that we can load
> and run different versions of the same code without interfering. In
> the current state Pharo 1.3 is a dead end, because I will never be
> able to load my code into Pharo 1.4.
>
> Lukas
>
> On 28 October 2011 14:40, Benjamin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 28, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>
>>> Hi guys
>>>
>>> so what do we do with RPackage
>>>       - (A) throw away 4 months or more of my work. I feel sorry for Nautilus and I could understand that benjmain gets really pissed off.
>>>       but this means that we will stay with the old browsers. Sounds like a promising future.
>>>       - (B) use it with a mapping one to one with category (and yes people will have to change the configurations). This is done.
>>>       - (C) somebody takes three hours to look at what I did and think a bit but does not tell me that this is easy but propose
>>>       a real plan to get towards a solution.
>>>
>>> Marcus, igor your wish to have labels (I added them to RPackage). I fixed SystemAnnouncement.
>>> Now without help it will not work (if you do not put energy on the table).  I have a lot of wishes too and something else to do too.
>>> Because we have categories in addition… I discussed with Benjamin and we can fill up RPackageOrganizer with MCWorkingCopies but this
>>> means that we will have to match the complete system with subcategories (
>>>       Graphics-Core
>>>       should match Graphics*
>>>
>>> So since it does not seem that we are pragmatic or that we want to make progress on this topic, I will do A and we will wait for concrete
>>> discussions. Apparently nobody care anyway. So this should not be important after all.
>>>
>>> Stef
>>
>>
>> Cool ...
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lukas Renggli
> www.lukas-renggli.ch
>