On 07.09.2009, at 20:54, Matthew Fulmer wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 12:19:19PM -0600, Ken G. Brown wrote:
>> Question:
>> If ToolBuilder has its own repository, and changes to ToolBuilder  
>> are done at separate repository at squeaksource.com/DeltaStreams,  
>> then also put into the trunk repository, then it is found in trunk  
>> that a small fix is required to ToolBuilder, where would the be fix  
>> be stored? If done just locally to trunk,  how would it ever be  
>> possible to keep ToolBuilder in its separately loadable repository  
>> in sync?
>
> I think I actually abandoned those changes to ToolBuilder. They
> worked fine and are only additions, and so break nothing,
> however, Goran and I decided to use plain Morphic rather than
> Toolbuilder, as Morphic is on more platforms than ToolBuilder.
> Etoys, notably, lacks ToolBuilder.

Can't you just load the ToolBuilder support into Etoys so any new tool  
using it would work, without us having to refactor much?

Also, we wouldn't mind adopting ToolBuilder in Etoys for real but  
there simply are so many issues to fix in Etoys itself that these  
things tend to never get done by the core team. Our summer release is  
imminent so it would take a few weeks but otherwise - sure, why not :)

>> Similarly for MC. I've seen the following go by:
>> At 3:36 AM +0000 8/31/09, commits at source.squeak.org apparently wrote:
>>> Andreas Raab uploaded a new version of Monticello to project The  
>>> Trunk:
>>> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Monticello-ar.321.mcz
>>
>> Yet it is clear that at the public repository for MC at http://www.squeaksource.com/mc/ 
>> , that Monticello is already at at least version 492. How does the  
>> Andreas 321 change relate to the 492 version in the public MC  
>> repository?
>
> Actually, monticello 1.5 is at version 648:
> http://www.squeaksource.com/mc/Monticello.impl-mtf.648.mcz

I always wondered - why the strange package name?

> dunno of any reasonable way to keep external packages updated
> other than by adopting them. I have merged in some Pharo changes
> into MC1.5, and can do the same for trunk, if I ever get time to
> work on mc again. MC1.5 is ready for adoption, I think. It may
> have trouble loading some packages, but I won't really know
> until a bunch of people test it.
>
> I'd say MC1.5 is ready for adoption, if the following conditions
> can be met:
> - Users write mantis bug reports about it
> - bugs submitted under the Monticello category are automatically
>  assigned to me, rather than Avi Bryant, so they show up in my
>  inbox
>
> In the past, mc1.5 adoption was hindered because keith and I,
> the developers, never heard any report of some rather serious
> loading bugs, even though we have a record of fixing any bug we
> do hear about in hours.


Great! Can you figure out a way to load it into 3.10?

- Bert -