[deprecating DVS]
Note that while what you're saying (roughly "of course its deprecated,
it is obsolete") makes perfect sense from your POV, when Andreas hears
that DVS is deprecated, it sure sounds like he now needs to convert his
packages. And practically speaking, format "vendors" should never
deprecate a format quickly, because that causes their clients work and
discomfort. 

Therefore this discussion, which would probably not have happened if
Andreas had discovered the wonders of MC in his own time in another
month or so, without any ideas of DVS going anywhere.

[changing names]
A wonderful idea, IMO, how else would people understand it is now
something completely different (in that it works for everybody, not just
the CVS elite)?

[changing format]
I don't care that much, but I'd slightly prefer SIF because then Squeak
would be very easily loadable in other Smalltalks.

Daniel

Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Andreas Raab wrote:
> 
> >
> > This is in particular true about package/versioning systems. You seem to
> > assume that Monticello is going to be the "one and only" system in Squeak.
> > Well this may be true and it may not (IIRC, quite similar things have been
> > said about DVS).
> 
> Ok, there seems to be a little bit of confusion/frustration about
> introducing Monticello as a "replacement" for DVS and the talk of
> "deprecating" DVS.
> 
> Monticello is the evolution of the DVS code; it builds on the same ideas
> and is meant to be used by the same people for the same purposes.
> Monticello is a newer version of DVS, with a lot of things fixed,
> including the name (which, since it stood for Diff-based Versioning
> System, and the code hasn't had anything to do with the output of "diff"
> for a long time, was feeling a little silly).  When you release a new
> version of something with the same name, it's pretty obvious that the old
> version is deprecated; in this case, it seemd more necessary to shout
> "hey, everybody using DVS, if you want the new version, it's over
> here...".
> 
> Changing the name seems to have been confusing and was maybe a bad idea.
> It's done now, though, and probably doesn't make sense to undo.
> 
> Changing the file format seemed like a very good idea (treating chunk
> format declaratively was a pain in DVS, and I was hoping to move away from
> that).  It's possible that this was also, in fact, a bad idea;  luckily,
> this one is quite easy to undo.