Hi Avi.
Monticello - Are you keeping in mind Gorans intended change to SM (card
versions, configurations)? it would be very good if we could minimize
the impedence mismatch, and let the developer easily make releases,
including maintaining both a package, and it's related configuration(s).

Oh, and also - release early, release often... I know I'd like to have a
look.

PackageInfo -
I don't think the SpaghettiTracer should be in the image, even if PI
turns out to be, but I agree that PI and SpT should collaborate, so I'd
be glad to hear how you think the borders between them should evolve,
especially if you're getting into analysis.

If you have a look at SpT 0.41, ignore the *Morph classes, they're
incomplete.

Daniel


Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 danielv at netvision.net.il wrote:
> 
> > I think this all is great. Especially having our own CVS like
> > repository, tailored for Squeak work sounds wonderful.
> 
> It's coming along nicely.  The model is basically there; what's needed now
> is:
> 
>  - A good UI.  I know next to nothing about Morphic, so if someone wants
> to help me build a great versioning interface, let me know.
>  - Remote repository support.  Right now I only use the local
> filesystem.  Colin's interested in doing a MySQL repository, I might
> also look at doing an HTTP PUT based one.  Cees, can squeakfoundation.org
> host a simple PUTtable repo?
> 
> > In the vein of lightweight modularity work, I think PackageInfo, as
> > separate from the rest of DVS, and maybe with some additions/integration
> > would make a good basis for packages in Squeak generally.
> >
> > So I think we should think whether we might want to (gasp) add this to
> > the base Squeak image.
> 
> I agree, of course, which was partly why I broke it out from DVS to begin
> with.  Thanks for the summary below - I should also point out that those
> conventions are just those used by the default PackageInfo class.  It is
> possible to override pretty much any of them using a custom subclass, and
> thus describe any set of classes and methods in the image.  But for most
> purposes, the standard conventions work very well.
> 
> I'll post the separated PackageInfo and the updated DVS this weekend; if
> anyone's interested in previewing or working on Monticello (the versioning
> system), let me know.
>