On Monday 17 February 2003 06:03 pm, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:

> Q1:  Why are change sets saved in alphabetic order rather than
>      chronological order?  It seems obvious that this is likely to
>      break change sequences.
>
> Q2:  Is there any way I can tell change management to use
> chronological order instead?
>
> Q3:  At the moment, I'm dealing with the problem by manually
> shuffling the removal directives whenever I save a new version of
> the change set.  Is there a better way to do this?

I would consider separating the installation into several change sets 
all stuck in a SAR. You can then load them in the proper order, 
and/or have conditional loading based on Squeak versions.

> Q4:  I'd like the change set to be usable in 3.0, 3.2, and 3.4.
>      Is it OK if a change set file contains directives to remove
> methods that don't exist?  How do I make one remove a method from a
> _class_ that might not exist in some version?

I'd stick this in a preamble or postscript, generally, or in a 
separate change set for that specific version.

-- 
Ned Konz
http://bike-nomad.com
GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE