Michael Rueger writes: > [email protected] wrote: > > > Why not just add the plugin's to the VMMaker package? > > > > I don't see any gain for having another official plugin package besides > > VMMaker. It'll have the main problem and advantage of VMMaker of > > central ownership. > > That's not what I suggested, just a naming scheme. > > I also don't think that all plugins will be centrally maintained, as > that would require write access of every plugin maintainer to the VM > repository. > > Michael
But Monticello packages are just a naming scheme. Your statement: "That would also allow to simply load all plugins into a VMMaker image by using a package 'Plugin'.". Seems to indicate to me that using the naming convention you suggested would lead to all the packages being part of a single Monticello package. Bryce _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
