About MC for managing the image

[Andreas Raab]

Avi Bryant wrote:
> I do think that using a Squeak package with dependencies, or  
> alternatively just changing a Configuration to have a load strategy  
> more like a package with dependencies, would be a good idea.  When I  
> recently tried updating a 3.9a image through a few configuration  steps, 
> it was bad enough that it took as long as it did, but it was  awful that 
> it stopped to ask me about loading over a modified package  many times 
> during the process - so I couldn't just walk away.  This  wouldn't 
> happen if MC's multi-package-load mechanism were used  instead of 
> explicit ordering.  It would also mean you wouldn't  (usually) have to 
> think about package ordering yourself.  So it  should speed up the 
> process for everyone.

Please say more about this, since it's been a while that I have used 
dependencies in MC at all. About load strategies: I don't know what 
strategy MC uses but unless it gets this right every single time (which 
I doubt) having configurations is vastly advantageous. Usually, I have a 
"master configuration" (for a project like Tweak) which lists the fifty 
or so packages in what I consider "load order", e.g., a unique order for 
loading the packages that includes eventual dependencies. If I post a 
new configuration I simply "update" the old oonfiguration from either 
image or packages and post it. It's a very simple process but if there's 
any need I can re-order the packages for that specific post.

About it being "bad enough": I agree. I think the current model is not 
very well suited for the current set of requirements. For example, 
posting confs explicitly can be a good idea if you're doing active 
development in a repository and only want people to see certain changes 
but if you don't, there is really no point in it. One might as well just 
have people update the packages implicitly whenever possible (e.g., no 
load conflicts).

About being asked for loading over a modified package: That seems easy 
to fix if it were such a big issue but I still don't see if you can walk 
away if you have a modified package. You would at least have to have a 
look at the conflicts, don't you?

> It also seems like configurations are maybe being posted to the  update 
> stream too frequently: I doubt I actually needed to go through  so many 
> intermediate steps to get to the final state.  I assume this  is why 
> Impara uses the combination of explicitly posted configs, and  just 
> updating to the most recent versions in a given repository.

That is correct.

Cheers,
   - Andreas