On Feb 11, 2004, at 3:10 PM, Doug Way wrote:

>> PS. This would also mean that we pull in VersionNumber and MCInstaller
>> into 3.7 Basic - but that seems alright to me.
>>
>
> Adding the Monticello installer in Basic is another issue which 
> Michael & others posted about before.  I'm personally fine with adding 
> it.  That may make Monticello a defacto standard and it may viral 
> itself into a lot of code, but the same is true of changesets, and if 
> MC is a good addition/successor to the changeset format, maybe that's 
> a good thing.  (Life would be pretty difficult if we insisted on not 
> having ChangeSets or anything else as a standard, for example. :-) )  
> I'm still not totally clear on where the dividing line between MC and 
> PackageInfo is, I need to play around with MC more.  But it sounds 
> like we want the fuller capabilities of MC.

It's also important to differentiate between Monticello and MCInstaller.

I completely agree that Monticello shouldn't be in Basic. It's a fair 
amount of code directed at a narrow purpose, and it's perfectly 
reasonable to expect users to install it from SM.

OTOH, I think MCInstaller would be a reasonable addition to the base 
image. It's just one class and it is broadly useful: it allows Squeak 
to read a file format that Squeakers will encounter frequently.

Colin