<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Norbert Hartl wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1246520470.17185.23.camel@cineflux" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 02:16 -0500, Ralph Johnson wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Norbert Hartl<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:norbert@hartl.name"><norbert@hartl.name></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I still don't think that Monticello is the right way to go. It doesn't
really manage changes. I can so easily overwrite a change that was
applied before that it is hard to use. You can argue that you have to
be careful anyway and that you can merge. You are right but still it
is hard to use. Another thing is pharo. All of my contribution to the
image I did in pharo because I never saw much a chance to do this in
squeak. Now it can be doable. And doing something in pharo and not be
able to do it in squeak at the same time strikes me really. Using
always Monticello with full source compare will prevent applying fixes
from one team to the other. The sources are just more different every
day.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Convert the changes into a change set. File the change set into each
system and then create a new Monticello file for each system.
Andreas said that the repository will hold MC files. He didn't say
you couldn't use change sets on your own. Or any other tool you want
to use. Use whatever you want to get your work done, then post it in
a standard format.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Ralph,
I'm aware that it is doable. But you must see that there is a difference
between having the opportunity to file in the same thing with little
tweaking to multiple targets instead of first creating the target files
in a cumbersome way. Don't take this too literally. It will work somehow
to do this with Monticello. But as there is a tension to lower barriers
I just thought making that barrier lower is also wanted. That's all what
I wanted to say.
And...perhaps I didn't here much discussion about what goran was saying.
I understand people if they don't see much sense in using a piece of
software that hasn't matured yet for the management of their stuff. But
this could still be a part of the refreshing actions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think maybe I missed some of your context in my last message.
Perhaps DeltaStreams (or something) can help lower the barriers to
contribute simultaneously to Squeak and Pharo. However, I don't think
that there's any sense waiting an indefinite period for that technical
solution to mature while we have a pretty-good tool to use right now
(and I see more clearly that you're not suggesting that either). <br>
<br>
I think that after some more experience with a Monticello-based
process, whatever shortcomings that need to be addressed by future
tools will naturally become more clear. It's good to keep the issues
that you raise in mind; they will be addressed in time.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Josh<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1246520470.17185.23.camel@cineflux" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Norbert
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>