On 7/6/07, Keith Hodges <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> I am not sure what you mean by plenty of information though. There is
> source code. Long ago I concluded that the "Avi" definition of "plenty
> of information" differs greatly from mine. How about some white papers?

That's a fair cop in general, but - there have been a number of posts
to this list and to Colin's blog with fairly detailed explanations of
what we were doing.  Damien has also collected some more info from us
recently.  It's true that it's not very well organized, but the info
is out there (as well as, of course, the source code).

> This is not strictly true.
>
> In the spirit of incremental, and hence hopefully adoptable progress.
> There is a version of Monticello1 which has SystemEditor from MC2 in it,
> ready to use. It only took one day to put this in, I did it about 6
> weeks ago, and it is ready to roll when SystemEditor works.

Ah, well - SystemEditor is something apart from the rest of MC2 that
was explicitly designed to be usable in other contexts.  So it's great
that you put it to use but I don't think it affects the point I was
trying to make about community buy-in.

To practice what I'm preaching here: I think the right way forward at
this point is for me to extend Monticello with some of the more
interesting ideas from MC2 in a backwards compatible way, so that we
can test the ideas in the wild without asking people to fundamentally
alter their workflow.  I spent a couple of hours this weekend mapping
out a plausible way to attack this, and I'll spend a few more turning
that into code during the week.

Since I can't easily do this as a separate add-on package, but will be
modifying some of the basic Monticello classes - is there a version of
MC that is most commonly used that I should start from? If nobody
speaks up I'll be going from Monticello-avi.279, which is the latest
on SqueakSource.

Avi