Jon Hylands wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:50:31 -0500, Alan Grimes <alangrimes at starpower.net>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I would have no complaint if this were a key piece of 
>>software vital to all squeakers everywhere. However, Squeakmap -- which 
>>I assume is a mostly distinct technology, is already quite satisfactory 
>>for most of my needs, and the needs of most users I expect.
> 
> 
> Well, SqueakMap and Monticello are two very different things. SqueakMap is
> a code/package repository, and Monticello is a code versioning system.
> 
> I am exceptionally happy to have Monticello in Squeak -- I can now version
> all my packages, and it makes it much simpler to move code between images.
> 
> The other big single-user advantage Monticello has to me over changesets is
> that I don't need to remember what change set is current all the time. When
> I used change sets for stuff, if I was working on several different
> packages in a single image, I usually ended up with changes getting jumbled
> in together, even when I tried to use projects to manage the change sets.
> With Monticello, the package a piece of code belongs to is fixed, and its
> one less thing you have to think about.
> 
> Later,
> Jon
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>    Jon Hylands      Jon at huv.com      http://www.huv.com/jon
> 
>   Project: Micro Seeker (Micro Autonomous Underwater Vehicle)
>            http://www.huv.com
> 
> 

I full agree with Jon opinion. Work with changesets was a complication, 
with Monticello is very simple and productive.

Additionally, as Jon says, is much more simpler to move a project 
between images.

Cheers.
gsa.