Le 5 mai 2015 à 17:14, Kasper Osterbye a écrit : > Marcus Denker-4 wrote >> Right now we do not have yet Package comments. >> >> But we should! >> >> MBInfo seems to be a private class of Versionner… >> >> For package comments we first need to evaluate the design space… >> e.g. where to store it in the image, how to store it in Monticello… > > OK - Makes sense. > > From my perspective, the key to getting this of the ground is to make sure > such comments can be written and read in Nautilus. The package objects used > in Nautilus are from "RPackage". > Thus, the problem, in my view reduces to: > a) How to make room in RPackage for a comment field (add one more IV) > b) How to integrate the storage of this field in connection with Monticello > as Marcus writes.
I don't think is the good way to do that. We are working on adding meta-data to packages. These meta-data includes a package description (or comment) but also a lot of other data. You will not be able to store everything in rpackage inst. var. And of course, there is also the problem that Monticello is not able to store meta-data (e.g. STON files). For now, the best option is to use a PackageManifest. If you want to allow package comments in Nautilus, I would display the content of the description method of the package manifest if available. Christophe.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
