On 29 Jan 2014, at 11:25, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am 28.01.2014 um 23:47 schrieb Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]>: > >> >> On 28 Jan 2014, at 23:34, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Am 28.01.2014 um 22:50 schrieb Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> they do not appear because they shouldn’t :) >>>> >>>> MCPackage = RPackage in 3.0 >>>> >>> Ah, very good. I see this of course shortly after I applied ones again >>> stupid package names to be able to separate tests. >>> >>>> that means that you need 3 mc packages… or 1 r packages + 2 tags >>>> >>> tags? What year is it? At the moment I’m feeling as I had been off the list >>> for quite a while! Ok, I’ll try to find these myself. >>> >>> Btw. 30 minutes ago I found metacello stuff (create baseline, create >>> development version) in the menu of the monticello packages. Great stuff! >>> Are you sure there isn’t a lot of good stuff sneaking in without anyone >>> noticing? >>> >>>> btw… there are still some glitches with that that need to be fixed. Please >>>> report if/when you find them :) >>>> >>> Oh my, I hate it because that is the one thing I’m good at….finding bugs. >> >> cool… we need more like you (and so far Stef has the podium) :) >> > Is there anything to take care in a mixed environment. I have 2.0/3.0 mixed > setting here. From now on I like to develop in 3.0 even if the code is loaded > into a 2.0 image. Can I expect trouble when loading the finer grained > packages produced via 3.0 in a 2.0 image?
it should work without problem… but of course if you attempt to save in 2.0 package A will include A-B and A-C :) Esteban > > Norbert > >>> >>> Norbert >>> >>>> Esteban >>>> >>>> On 28 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have a project that defines a package >>>>> >>>>> Project-Core >>>>> >>>>> then I added some more like >>>>> >>>>> Project-Core-Exception >>>>> Project-Core-Command >>>>> … >>>>> >>>>> but those do not appear in the monticello package. Is it supposed to be >>>>> that way from 3.0 on or is this a bug? >>>>> >>>>> Norbert >
