[Newbies] Re: Collaboration with Squeak 2.8

[Andreas Raab]

On 6/21/2010 7:59 PM, Clinton Blackmore wrote:
> I'm hacking on Scratch, which is based on MIT Squeak, which is based on
> Squeak 2.8.  I want to collaborate with others on a project.
>
> Monticello appears to require Squeak 3.1 or later.  Is there a way for
> me to upgrade an image?

I don't think that's a sensible route considering that the 2.8 image 
that Scratch is based on is likely not the Squeak 2.8 release but a 
custom variant.

> If not, is there a sensible way to use a revision control system?

Well, you *could* consider porting Monticello to 2.8. Since it has a 
pretty decent test suite you'd basically have to port PackageInfo, 
SystemNotification (or replace it with something else) and Monticello. 
Certainly work, but not unbounded if you know what you're doing (but if 
you're not an experienced Smalltalker don't even think about it).

> It appears to me that:
>
> 1) collaborators could each create change sets, and e-mail them to each
> other, for every one to file in (which sounds like it would be
> confusing; surely I am not understanding something)
>
> or
>
> 2) every class in the code could be filed out into a directory, standard
> version control systems could be used, and then every class could be
> filed back in (which likewise seems daunting).
>
>
> What sort of workflows would you recommend?

The currently accepted workflows all center around Monticello. Basically 
people create shared repositories at (for example) 
http://www.squeaksource.com and use that to commit, update, and merge.

Alternatives have been proposed (such as using SVN; see [1]) but they're 
generally pretty heavy-weight and require even more overhead to maintain.

[1]http://news.squeak.org/2008/09/16/subversion-integration-for-squeak

Cheers,
   - Andreas