Yes and no.
Yes, because the time element is much more visible than in packages
which usually try to make it invisible.
No because:
- Control over changes (what of my changes get sent to the server, what
changes I choose to recieve from the server, the unit for diff/merge
operations) can remain at the Package level.
- At least one style of work is the diff level, over a model of the
code, so that things are reversible, can be inspected without being
installed, can be upgraded cleanly... all the good things we've come to
associate with DVS/Monticello.

So that the dumbness of ChangeSets need not be inherited. If this is
what you meant, I'm not sure... maybe you can expand on what you had in
mind.

Daniel

Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
> > I think it can be an interesting basis for the way to interact with a
> > versioning system -
> > * You get automatic updates about changes anyone (or interesting
> > parties) make to any code (or just specific packages).
> > * The way the versioning system gets its information is that it is
> > simply another player in this game - getting updates from everyone
> > that's working - except that instead of displaying something, it would
> > simply save the state of each session it is connected to.
> 
> Yes - the problem with this is that it gets back to recording changes,
> which I know from experience is not as robust (or is very hard to make as
> robust) as working with whole-package snapshots.