Hi avi

I hope that once we will have this discussion face to face in front of 
a beer.

> Stef, you've brought this up a few times.
> Can I ask: have you *tried*
> doing this using Monticello instead?  I'm not saying it will provide a
> 100% solution for what you're doing, but I suspect it'll bring you at
> least part of the way there, and then we'd know what had to be done to
> bring you the rest of the way.

You should ask alex because he was the slave doing the bad job, and he 
started to use monticello.
So you see we are not against monticello.

I tried monticello and I'm amazed (you know the feeling that a 
Smalltalker gets when seeing
a C programmer discovering Java) that we are still there while this is 
6 years that I worked
daily with envy or store (which have their own problems too). So 
monticello is a good
effort because else we would not have anything. Luaks showed me his 
cooool extensions
you know where you have a list of projects sorted.....I'm not seeing 
that this is bad, this is good
and needed when you have nothing.

> Again, Monticello already provides this kind of doit-less fileout.

Ok so I will relook at it.

>   Maybe
> you'll run into some situations where you need something MC doesn't
> support (you mentioned globals, for example), but at least then we'll
> *know* that this needs to be added and we can work on it (and most of
> these can be solved short term by cheating and using class-side
> #initialize methods).  Right now you're just saying "changesets suck",
> and, well, we know this already.

Not everybody I guess. Why the changeset sorted then is still using 
changeset
and remove?
When I harvest I only get cs and not mcv. When I click on changeset 
sorter mail to the list
I send a changeset. So this means that behind the scene the nice 
harvester would have to dispatch
the changes to packages.  My point is that people should realise that 
having just a layer of packages
does not scale for the harvesting process and maintenance of external 
packages.
May be I'm wrong....

So clearly there is an education message there. So I really like what 
alan
is doing with thinking in terms of packages (I would love to have Squat 
and load packages, believe
me) but I can tell you that I know people that thinks that this is 
silly and goes nowhere. So the
infrastructure should show to these people that they are wrong (not 
handweaving).

> Please, tell us why Monticello sucks
> instead.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that there is a guy (not an easy 
one sure)
that works over 15 years in envy, package.... management wrote books, 
works on big industrial projects
that will release a meta-model for code and that I do not want to 
reinvent that. (because I already did
that for my research and this is enough for me).

I'm about to retry monticello, as lukas shows it to me what he did. 
(I'm a bit sad to
see smart guys redoit stuff but this is another story). But just 
because I have nothing else because
after worked in good environment this is like having my hands cut.

>> Now we have to decide. Avi would you be interested to have Ginsu as a
>> core meta-model for monticello?
>
> I suggested that to Joseph at StS, but the conversation didn't pan out 
> as
> I had hoped.

Yeap apparently we got completely mis-communication there because I 
always thought that joseph was interested into
that. At least this is what is said in the Ginsu mailing. So you should 
have drink more beers together this is clear.

> Right now, I'd say (if you'll forgive the reference to a bad
> movie) "Show Me The Code": once there's a public, open source release 
> of
> Ginsu we'll be in good shape to evaluate such possibilities.  Until 
> then,
> let's work with what we've got, thanks.

Go on source forge you will get the release (old of september) 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ginsu/.
And this is clear that joseph is a kind of diva and not an easy person.

I added joseph in CC this way is he knows that I'm putting the mess as 
usual but I'm frustrated by lack of
communication in our micro-tiny-pico community.

You know I ported with daniel Ginsu in squeak 3.1 for NOTHING.
So do not tell me that I'm not pissed of by the lack of sharing.

I was really sad by the lack of sharing especially because we can 
reinvent no problem but I will
not participate then, just wait that you guys are doing it because I do 
not have the time to wait
(this is sad but throw me stones if you think that I do not do enough. 
I'm stone-proofed :)).

So now you can think that what I'm saying is easy because I do not have 
the resources to help.
Yes and I know more than a lot of people that things happen because we 
do them. Still I wanted to
raise this issue. So I hope that you understand my point.

But now the time are changing (at least I hope).

> My honest guess is that it's not something I'll be willing to invest 
> time
> in personally, but I'll provide support to anyone that wants to try.  I
> don't think allowing MC to support multiple packaging/modelling 
> systems is
> an unreasonable goal.

Ok so if somebody is fool enough to work on that good chance. I think 
that competition
will not serve anything but who knows.

Stef