Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> > Squeak suffers from lack of a good multi developer source management
> > system (which should of course include documentation).
> 
> That depends on how loosely you define "good".  DVS + CVS (or SVN
> or any of the other standard SCMs out there) actually works quite well;

Well, I know this. :-) But since we are not using it for maintaining
Squeak itself the problem still exists.

> one of the reasons progress has been so slow on Monticello is that for day
> to day work, managing Squeak source in CVS is actually quite practical, so
> the itch to improve things isn't there.

That is interesting to hear.

> And hey, there's even some documentation:
> http://beta4.com/squeak/aubergines/docs/dvs.html
> 
> All of my publically available Squeak code is accessible through CVS on
> sourceforge; I would love to see more people do the same.  Perhaps we
> could even set up a public Squeak CVS repository, along the lines of VW's
> public StORE repository, as a companion to SqueakMap?

Yes, indeed. I would want to be able to include information about that
in SM so that one trivially can "checkout" a package from the bleeding
edge repository - wherever that is.

But... do you think Monticello/DVS is practical today for replacing the
current update stream/harvesting process? Or should they be used
together somehow?

Anyway, I believe that the problem will "self destruct" when the base
image is gone and the packages have been "liberated" and put under
personal ownership. Then that owner can pick whatever solution he/she
sees fit for maintaining the package.

And SM should be able (as always) to cope with them all.

> Avi

regards, Göran