Ok, thanks for you answers (comments below)<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/7/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Keith Hodges</b> <<a href="mailto:keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk">keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk</a>> wrote:
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>yes thats the one.</blockquote><div><br><br>Cool, I like that one. <br></div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Because those methods are in a change set with discussion etc. managed<br>mantis. Loaded as per
<br><br>Installer mantis ensureFix: 4874.</blockquote><div><br><br>Wouldn't it be best to get this fix loaded into the Montecello repository as a proper change, so that the Universe just has to point at the new version?
<br><br>Personally I see Monticello as a change repository like CVS, SVN, etc. (but better), and Universes as the "apt-get" system debian has. I don't think the apt-get system automatically picks anything up, it only gets what has been configured for the set it is working on (
e.g. Stable, Unstable, etc.). Now those sets may be programatically updated, but the apt-get system itself doesn't (afaik anyway) and imo shouldn't do it.<br><br>For me personally, maintaining this separation of concerns makes it much easier to understand the systems then if everything can do everything.
<br></div></div>