Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> [not much about MC can be scaled back to make an installer]
> That leaves us with a small trillema - 
> * Do we bloat the default image with around 60 classes to support a
> format that a user might never load?
> * Do we make it require manual installation of Monticello before people
> can install mcvs from SM?
> * Do we expect developers to work with mcv files, but makes releases
> using .st files? this makes it harder for users of a package to become
> developers, which think we should avoid.
> 
> BTW, from a quick glance at MC, seems to me that the following might be
> removable -
> * Tests
> * UI
> * Mocks
> * Storing 
> * Merging
> * Patching?
> 
> The code left is not trivial, but it is significantly less. Including it
> in Basic might not be unreasonable. The fact that it includes a
> declarative model of code might be considered an advantage in some
> circles ;-)
> 
> Daniel

Presumably it can eventually (once SM 1.1 is out) just be a dependency 
of any .mcv package.  For now, perhaps we can just add a command to 
install it (like SARInstaller and the DVS) when you load SqueakMap. 
This requires people who already have SM installed to load it manually 
of course but, so be it.

I don't think Monticello needs to actually be in the base image.

Julian