In any case, it will not be a problem for me to update all my config with this new schema.
I'm not sure what you mean by configs. The contents of a Monticello package is simply a collection of definitions, and will stay the same. The browser will probably need updating though, since extensions no longer necessarily have to be in a *packagename category . Loading a Monticello package stored from an RPackage-based system into a system still using PackageInfo might cause false dirties , for the same reason. As long as there is no package browser as standard (like there is in VW), and people still specify extensions by using * categories in a system browser, that's not likely to be a big issue though. RPackage does make it much easier to create a performant package browser though :)
For example, currently, ConfigurationOfMetacelloBrowser loads one package, MetacelloBrowser. But the package itself has many categories (-Core, -Test, ...). So, if each class category is a package, then I will have to update the category. But I am for it! The cost of updating configurations is much less than what we are all spending because PackageInfo (just think how many times you have press '+Package' in the Monticello browser). Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.