[Newbies] Changesets, Monticello and SqueakMap

[Norbert Hartl]

On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 21:33 +0200, goran at krampe.se wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Norbert Hartl <norbert at hartl.name> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > at the moment I try to figure out how the three configuration 
> > management approaches fit together. After switching to Monticello 
> 
> Mmmm, they are three quite different beasts. I wouldn't call SqueakMap a
> "configuration management approach". :)
> 
> > I found my life a lot easier :) Monticello is of great help!
> 
> Indeed.
>  
> > Then I noticed that changesets are named after the Monticello 
> > package that was last imported. I'm not quite sure if changesets 
> > have any benefit if someone is using monticello.
> 
> Well, they are still useful as a "plainer" format for small fixes etc.
> We still use them on Mantis as attachments for fixes.
> A ChangeSet is very much like a "patch" in unix land. But they can be
> terribly confusing to work with.
> 
Ok, sounds reasonable.

> > Then there is squeakmap. Squeakmap seems to be the official 
> > release server. Is squeakmap tied to a special format? Can 
> 
> SqueakMap is a catalog. Yes, it is official and *currently* there is
> only one (SM3 is being planned and is intended to be able to work in a
> more distributed fashion with multiple "mixin" servers).
> 
> No, it is not tied to a special format.
> 
> > squeakmap use monticello  packages as well? I'm asking because I 
> 
> Oh, yes it can.
> 
> > had problems to find any version information on squeakmap (beside
> > the squeakmap version).
> 
> Unsure what you mean. You should be able to easily see the releases and
> their download URLs and thus the formats.
> In short - SM supports IIRC:
> 
> .pr - Project files.
> .cs .st .cs.gz .st.gz - ChangeSets and regular old fileouts, compressed
> or not.
> .sar - Squeak ARchives (a zip file with some conventions)
> .mcz - Monticello snapshots (using either MCInstaller or Monticell -
> whichever your image has)
> 
> 
> > While reading the squeak lists it appeared to me that a lot of 
> > you are developing with monticello and releasing on squeakmap. But 
> > I didn't find any information about the source (e.g. monticello 
> > version) version. 
> 
> Monticello only has one version of the format so far. So it doesn't
> matter which version of Monticello you use.
> Btw, I recommend using a newer Monticello than the one on SM (not sure
> why Avi hasn't made a new SM release): .279 
> 
I wasn't clear on that point. I meant something different. If you 
use monticello each save operation creates a package-author-id info.
I was wondering that if there is a package released based on a 
monticello snapshot that monticello package information isn't mentioned
in the squeakmap release. 
> > I think it would be great to install a release from squeakmap and 
> > having the opportunity to open monticello and see which newer 
> > versions (and most important what changes) have been made. The 
> 
> Mmmm, you can do that. But sure, you need to add the correct MC repo to
> look in manually.
> 
I meant not only to see the difference between the monticello version 
and the version in the image. Usually if I install packages via
monticello I can see which version it is. And I don't think there is a
chance that the version which I installed from squeakmap gets
highlighted in monticello. 
> > squeakmap packages could also add their repository to monticello 
> > when they are installed.
> 
> Yes, that would be neat. I have actually planned to add a "Repository"
> field to packages, but a small snag was how to represent a repo
> textually. I did consider to use the "doit" that creates it, just like
> in MC. But that would be a nasty security hole - unless I add
> restrictions on it. An alternative would be to invent a "URLish" syntax
> for MC repos.
The code snippet for adding the repo could be displayed in the package
description. As these code snippets can be clickable it would be an
easy way to do without any side effects. 
Maybe it is possible to tell Monticello which version this package has
and it would be the same as installing this particular version from 
monticello. It would be highlighted as any other package which has been
installed via monticello. 
>  
> > The only reason against it I can imagine is that this would introduce
> > dependencies which aren't wanted.
> 
> Not sure how you mean.
> 
Just wild guessing :)

thanks,

Norbert

> PS. I wrote and maintain SqueakMap so feel free to ask me anything about
> it.
I will. Thanks, you are very helpful.