>
> 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.


Hi doug

I agree with you. My impression is that we should "let live and let 
die": let MC become so cool and convenient
that changesets will be as a strange and obsolete format. Because soon 
we will have a binary format (or I do not understand
evolution :)).
For example nowadays if you would send me your code in changeset 
without a binary parcel in VisualWorks
and it would take 25 min to load vs 5 s, I would think that you are an 
odd man :) (gee I did that before parcels waiting 20 min
that RB would load in a non atomic manner).

So what is important to let Squeak modifies itself this means that we 
should not prevent MC to get better and better.

Stef

>
> - Doug
>
> By the way everyone, I worked on incorporating the latest updates last 
> night, but there are a lot of them, so I didn't get finished... will 
> try to finish tonight.  After that, we may just have one more updates 
> round before beta.

Doug I will try to harvest all the recent fix related to transparent 
color/form/and related.
I think that people should review the features they want to see or 
lobby a bit marcus and I because lot of stuff got accumulated
in the fix queue.


>
>
>