danielv at netvision.net.il wrote:
> Hi Avi.
> Monticello - Are you keeping in mind Gorans intended change to SM (card
> versions, configurations)? it would be very good if we could minimize
> the impedence mismatch, and let the developer easily make releases,
> including maintaining both a package, and it's related configuration(s).

I think Avi is synched enough with me - Monticello is AFAIK aiming to
become a team development tool with a similar work cycle as CVS using
automerge and update/commit commands.

But it will not be doing any more package stuff than DVS I think, right
Avi?

So my conclusion is that the tools for Monticello could have some nice
hooks into SM to be able to easily publish a package etc (cough, when
that API is there) but there is no danger in overlap.

And later when a slave map server can have "private" packages this turns
even more interesting.

> Oh, and also - release early, release often... I know I'd like to have a
> look.

Yep, that mantra is something Squeakers need to learn - not that Avi
doesn't know it of course, both DVS and Seaside has been coming early
and often. But I think too many of us are sitting on stuff that really
should do better out in the open. Hey, just look at all the fixes and
improvements the Croquet guys have gotten now that they released.

So, just smack it up there on SM and mark it as Bleeding edge, then
noone has any right to complain! :-) At the very least this will show us
what we have out there. I am really glad to see Michaels stuff (URI,
networking) for example. ;-)

regards, Göran