Hi Chris,

I've been doing lots of saves but no versioning of the configuration file.
I miss that from envy, but I figured that as I go if I need a persistent
checkpoint I would just add a version number and change the name.  For the
most part since you are working with packages that are versioned it's easy
to rollback when you need too manually.

The other thing to keep in mind is that you don't have to save the
configuration file.  When I get to a point that everything is working the
way I want it to I save the file.  From then on I only version the packages.
When I start up each day I open the configuration file and update from
repositories.  (This can be dangerous when squeakSource is down.  You end up
loading from package-cache instead).  This way I get all the updates from
everyone including all my new code (I'm running my own squeakSource for my
code).  I keep an image with no objects created (I don't run any apps) and
load code.  If the code loading time gets to long I'll save an image with
just the code loaded.

So I have basically three things to help manage code.

1. Check point on saved configuration file
2. The current working point.  Loading versioned packages accessed by using
update from repositories. 
3. Current working checkpoint on saved code-load-only image.

Hope that helps,

Ron Teitelbaum

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Chris Muller
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:35 PM
> To: squeak dev
> Subject: Iterative development with MCConfigurations
> 
> What is a best practice for doing iterative development with
> MCConfigurations?
> 
> I want to be able to make plenty of short, incremental improvements,
> with a map defining the stable combination of packages each time.
> 
> I found Cees' great "MCConfigurations quick how-to"
> 
> 
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2005-
> November/098181.html
> 
> He seems to say this sort of development is overrated (I'm interpreting
> his words with my own word).
> 
> But even if I didn't want to be conservative and have lots of
> small-step maps I can easily roll-back to, I still want to at least be
> able to post the continuously improving software to SqueakSource.  When
> posting though, it doesn't overlay the existing configuration with that
> name, instead gives you an error "Found".  SqueakSource doesn't seem to
> be aware of configurations so you can select and delete them.
> 
> So that leaves versioning.  I have not seen a way for configurations to
> be "versioned," but since ancestry isn't really necessary for
> configurations maybe this really just amounts to me using my own naming
> scheme that includes an incrementing number..?
> 
> What are some good practices?
> 
>