Hi, When we started with RPackage there was a debate as to the strategy regarding the mapping. I advocated 1-to-1 mapping of categories to RPackage, and it seems this is what we now have. The detailed plan looked as follow: --- Stage 1: Get RPackage in the image and pretend that it acts like a smart cache for categories. Everything is expressed in terms of categories and mirrored in RPackages. Tools can now be built on top of RPackage. At this stage, no modification is needed and the new tools will work next to the old ones. Stage 2: Leave the logic of Monticello loading as it is now (n-to-1 Categoeies-to-MonticelloPackage), but modify Monticello publishing to rely on 1-to-1 RPackage-to-MonticelloPackage. This will basically force people to start changing the configurations. Stage 3: Change the Monticello loading to only allow 1-to-1 RPackage-to-MonticelloPackage. At this point, we can safely remove the Categories. --- Now we passed Stage 1 which is great. At this point, everyone can work like before, but are encouraged to create explicit Monticello packages out of categories. Next, I would like to propose that for Pharo 3.0 we go for Stage 2 and modify slightly Monticello publishing. Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "Quality cannot be an afterthought."