Hi

Just a note, we need to have group of packages and dependencies between 
them too. And monticello does not support that yet. But it
will surely because this is the way to go.

The next step is to have an environment working on monticello 
definition rather than run-time smalltalk entities, because the model
of monticello (like the one of ginsu) would made much easier to build 
tools and load code without installing.

Stef



On Vendredi, nov 14, 2003, at 18:45 Europe/Zurich, Brian Brown wrote:

>
> On Nov 14, 2003, at 2:05 AM, stregone at att.net wrote:
>
>> Hi all.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm the Chief Architect/CTO for a software company and as I mentioned 
>> in an
>> earlier post, we're starting several new projects.  Some of these 
>> projects are
>> using Smalltalk (the first time for us, though I've been using it at 
>> home for
>> years).  The reasons for switching to Smalltalk are various but 
>> mainly revolve
>> around faster implementation, existing projects/libraries that 
>> implement some
>> of the functionality we need, and the fact that I tired of our 
>> constantly
>> breaking procedural Java code.
>
>>
>>
>> The "problem" is this.  Up until now we've used CVS for code 
>> versioning,
>> sharing, and back-ups.  CVS works at the "project and class" levels.  
>> Now,
>> I've looked around a bit at the options available, but unfortunately 
>> I won't
>> have time to try them all- so I'm hoping to benefit from the experts 
>> on this
>> list.
>>
>>
>
> We are transitioning our commercial software house completely over to 
> Squeak, and have successfully made the transfer from CVS to 
> Monticello. Currently, our legacy products are still in CVS, but all 
> the Squeak stuff goes to MC. It works quite well with multiple 
> developers on a single project. Also, using categories to your 
> advantage, you can partition your applications to minimize any actual 
> method or class level conflicts, so merging is breeze.
>
>
>>
>>
>> First off, do we have a best pratices page for team development on 
>> the wiki?
>> We it be of use to anyone if I documented this changeover that we're 
>> making as
>> a commercial software house?
>>
>
> No we don't as others have said, but it would be great to document it. 
> I'll even volunteer to help you some as we are doing the same thing.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Secondly, it seems to me that perhaps Monticello is the closest thing 
>> to CVS
>> in the sense that it also operates on the package and class levels?  
>> Whereas
>> Magma, for example, operates more on the object level.  Or have I
>> misunderstood?  I know that this may be the time for a paradigm shift 
>> (and I'm
>> open to that), but the other developers have not been using Smalltalk 
>> and
>> they're in for several paradigm shifts as it is.
>>
>
> Apples and Oranges, Monticello is what you need, Magma is a generial 
> purpose OODB
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for any suggestions.
>>
>>
> You're welcome ;)
>
>>
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>
> Brian (Brown)
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian Pagano
>>
>
>