Hi people!

Jon Hylands <jon at huv.com> 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.

Jon explained a few things but I also want to point out that when you
use SqueakMap you actually also use Monticello. When SM installs
monticello packages it uses Monticello to do it. Currently the
Monticello format is the only "safe" format for doing package upgrades
because Monticello can install a newer version "correctly" (and for
example not flunk on class renames or method removals as changesets
typically do).

So sure, SM is distinct (doesn't share code with Monticello) but it
*uses* Monticello for packages in that format.

Anyway, in short - Monticello is great stuff even if you don't use it
directly yourself because it is the enabling technology behind the
scenes for SM *upgrades* and in the near future SM *uninstalls*.

regards, Göran