[ANN] Monticello Versioning

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at netvision.net.il
Sat Jul 26 07:22:57 UTC 2003


The word overhead is being used to generically here for me. I'm not sure
what issue Colin is talking about. Loading Monticello? What overhead are
you talking about - overhead for the developer to use two formats? 

I think that using two formats adds overhead for users to become
patchers, which Colins "send note with history info" solves only
partially. Tool support could make getting the mcv trivial, if the st
packages come with a url, which could almost eliminate this difference.
One would simply have an option for "to work on this package, load
monticello, get the mcv, and start working". It would, however, be quite
foreign to everybody (have a hard time think where one could put this
option, even).

Giving the user an mcv is simpler. The current problem with it is that
lacking an SMMCInstaller, one's package is hidden by default because it
is not auto-installable (so it might take a while for package users to
even notice - the problem is invisible). How about a trivial
SMMCInstaller that loads MC if it is missing and then loads the mcv?

Daniel

Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Colin Putney wrote:
> 
> > Because of the overhead required for working with them, I don't think
> > mcv makes a very good distribution format.
> 
> I think the overhead of always exporting to .st rather than just pointing
> people at your MC repository is considerably higher than that of just
> having people load Monticello.  I could be wrong, of course - since I
> always have Monticello loaded it obviously doesn't seem a big deal to me.
> But people have already started releasing things as mcv (Daniel and Cees,
> at least); I propose we wait until the first person actually complains
> about this before we start worrying about how to address that complaint.
> 
> So if it annoys you, speak up...
> 
> Avi



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list