Hi all!

Ned Konz <ned at squeakland.org> wrote:
> On Monday 12 July 2004 12:27 pm, Avi Bryant wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 2004, at 11:08 AM, Ned Konz wrote:
> > >  Why, by the way, does the new SM2 version require Monticello? The
> > > MCZInstaller does
> > > OK for most SM package loading.
> >
> > Because people already have the old SM2 version installed.  The
> > MczInstaller would load the new version on top of the old, instead of
> > doing a clean upgrade.
> 
> OK, but for the purposes of the upgrade stream, why not just distribute the 
> change set that MC produces when doing that? That way we could do a clean 
> upgrade without having to load Monticello to do it.

I am just chatting with Doug on IRC and we just decided ( :) Yup, you
should be there!) that we skip Monticello for now, issue an upgrade of
MCInstaller from 8 to 10, and issue an upgrade for the two SM packages
with any method removals embedded in the changeset (since MCInstaller
don't do removals).

regards, Göran