Update stream loading from SM/Monticello (was Re:
[FIX] SUnit-combined-md)
Doug Way
dway at mailcan.com
Wed Feb 11 20:41:06 UTC 2004
Colin Putney wrote:
>
> 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.
Ah, right, that makes more sense. MCInstaller sounds like a good
addition, then.
- Doug
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|