Hi guys!

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?st=E9phane_ducasse?= <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> Hi bert
> 
> >>> I think that we should also include Monticello as a package in 
> >>> 3.8/3.9.
> >>> I see two reasons to do this, one short term one long term.
> >>
> >> We actually discussed this a bit earlier (although no one summarized 
> >> the reasons as well as you did here) and generally agreed that 
> >> Monticello should go in 3.8.  It's actually in the plan for 3.8:
> >>
> >> http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3832
> >
> > I assume you're speaking about the full image, right? We agreed 
> > earlier on that no packaging system should go into the base image, but 
> > only the infrastructure necessary to build one, in particular 
> > PackageInfo. I agree it should make it into the full image which has 
> > all sorts of developer tools.
> 
> Yes.

Well, I disagree. :) I think it should go into Basic. BUT.... *as a
package*. This means that Minimal (or did we call it kernel? Gosh, can't
remember) will start to get visible. Up to now most people have only
been aware of Basic and Full. But if we think about this carefully we
also have "Minimal" - that is - Basic minus the packages in it.

IIRC Basic was meant as the "basic" environment for development. It
should include the tools that are in general needed for development, not
all the tools that are "nice addons". Monticello has IMHO a long time
ago passed from being a "nice addon" to now being the essential tool for
source code/package management in the Squeak community. And as such - I
think it should be there from the start.

But *as always* - we should add it *like a package* - just like SM for
example. Which means it is maintained separately, can easily be removed,
yaddayadda. You guys all know the reasons - I don't need to repeat them.

regards, Göran