On 23.03.2009, at 04:39, Eliot Miranda wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>     I'm embarrased to say that part of my ork environment revolves  
> around ChangeSets.

Hehe. You are not alone. I'm working with some of those stone age  
people, too ;) They even find Monticello needlessly complicated, the  
practice of having to reorganize method categories obnoxious, and on  
top of that those packages are less flexible than change sets.

I personally find MC much better suited for distributed development  
than change sets, but it's hard to convince them given that they think  
they would only lose power and gain nothing but ugliness.

> What I wondered was has anyone else gone throguh something similar  
> and if so do they have any code that would help me, war stories that  
> would change my mind,

I'd like to hear those stories, too. And ideas on how to work with  
both change sets and Monticello (or more specifically, how to keep up  
with newer squeak.org releases in an image managed by change sets).

> or alternatives (e.g. how to preserve Monticello overrides through a  
> condense changes).

Now that's simple, and should actually be fixed for a long time:

http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=2514

- Bert -