Does anyone remember why we decided to consider package tags (as in: Kernel-BasicObjects) not fully fledged sub-packages?
The implication here is that extension methods can’t live on the tag (they live on the parent package - in the above case Kernel - and not Kernel-BasicObjects), and equally the code critic works on the package level and not on an individual tag. Equally, refactoring can work at the package level … the list goes on. Having decided that it seemed to make it more understandable that Exercism exercises would simply be tags of the package exercism (its tidy to have the exercises neatly organised under a common parent with some generic menu options), I am finding that the above are starting to bite me. Extensions, Code critic (and sometimes refactoring) are awkward or more difficult to explain, and I was left wondering what the rational was to not make the tags fully fledged sub projects? I’m now wondering if I should bite the bullet and migrate every exercise tag to being a fully formed project (although in most cases it seems overkill for a class and a test). But I’m interested in the history of this one as maybe it can guide me? Tim
