<!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">
Keith Hodges wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4A5DC80C.9010207@yahoo.co.uk" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Andreas Raab wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Keith Hodges wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Looks like you have forked PackageInfo now...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">For factual reference, I used the version that was in Croquet because
it has seen years of use and I trust it. It itself is based on
PackageInfo-avi.20 which is straight from the horse's mouth as far as
I am concerned.
If you have a better version, how about contributing it to the trunk?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Absolutely not.
MC is maintained as an external package, once for all, the repository is
open. It is not maintained in trunk, nor should it be.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Can you explain why? Consider the following (please grant me the first
point, in the interest of a meaningful discussion):<br>
<br>
1) the community apparently supports the new contribution process,
which is based on Monticello<br>
2) the old process provided significant barriers to contribution (in
the form of confusion, extra hassles, etc.)<br>
3) having an "update" button built into the default Squeak image is
more convenient than having to first load Monticello<br>
4) if there is a demand for lean, Monticello-less images, then Bob can
easily build them<br>
<br>
You seem to take it as a philosophical necessity (axiomatic) that MC
must be external, when in reality the question is one of pragmatics. <br>
<br>
Borrowing Edgar's "Devil's Advocate" hat for a second... why does
Squeak-3.10 come with the Network package installed? Surely this can
be loaded manually by anybody that wants it, right? <br>
<br>
The answer is that the convenience outweighs any the negatives for the
Squeak community as a whole. Someone running embedded Squeak on a
submarine-robot might have to strip out the network code to make it
fit, but nevertheless the network code "belongs" in the base image
simply because of the result of this cost-benefit analysis.<br>
<br>
If Monticello is the way that the development trunk is maintained, then
I want it in the same image. To keep it outside is to generate
unnecessary friction in the process, both to contributors and to those
who want to simply want to keep up-to-date.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Josh<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4A5DC80C.9010207@yahoo.co.uk" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
If you want to load LPF and base trunk on 3.10.2-build as a starting
point then that would be a good idea, but MC should remain as an
externally maintained entity.
Keith
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>