I (and others) have been working through a ton of issues revolving around this name change, and while I think it's a good move in general, I wanted to bring up two points to consider for similar changes in the future. I've been primarily working in the 4.1 branch.
1) This is showing me just how tied the code is to the installation. Mostly on the agent side, but a bit on the server side as well. Someone mentioned in the future being able to download an archive and just run it wherever you extract it, I think there's going to be a bit of work there in making paths compatible. It has also been mentioned that we should make some globals such that we don't have paths sprinkled all over the code, that's probably worthwhile as well. 2) I'm beginning to think that this sort of thing should be done in a branch, thoroughly tested, and then merged in. I'm not sure what the thinking was here as-is. If someone moves a file elsewhere, are they thinking "this needs to be done, we'll just do it, see what breaks and fix it later", or are they just unaware of item #1 above and have no idea what code might be relying on that file being there in the right place. I would hope that someone would at least do a grep through the code or something. This is perhaps a subtle thing because changing paths doesn't necessarily cause builds to break or some tests to fail. Sorry for the rant. I understand that we didn't have packages at all a few weeks ago, so this should be a step up. Ideally, changing the way something is packaged shouldn't require changes to the code, or at worst minimal changes, but we're not there and I think it caught us off guard. Perhaps I don't understand all of the subtleties, but the lesson I take from this is that we should have first made packaging work as it did before, instead of introducing sweeping changes at the same time.
