Yes, I was just thinking the other day that we needed to add the ability 
to create a change set as a diff between two versions... unless it's 
already there.  Can't be too hard to do, I don't think.

Julian

Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> Cool.
> Reading http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3328 was very useful, when I
> got around to reading the documentation ;-)
> 
> Is there a for me to generate a diff file? I made an enhancement to
> Monticello I want to send you, but filing it all out is 224K, which is a
> bit much to send...
> 
> It is an extra menu option for each package, that does a "browse recent
> log", filtered by the specific package, so that it is trivial to recover
> stuff when an image crashes.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> 
>>http://map1.squeakfoundation.org/sm/packagebyname/monticello
>>
>>I'd like (along with Colin Putney) to announce a new release of the
>>Monticello versioning system.  Although partly an evolution of the earlier
>>DVS and Monticello work, which enabled Squeak code to be managed with
>>CVS, this is the first release to realistically support concurrent
>>development in Squeak without depending on external tools.
>>
>>To quote what I just wrote on the Swiki
>>(http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/1287), Monticello provides:
>>
>>#  declarative modelling of Smalltalk code (Monticello is based on
>>whole-package snapshots, not change sets)
>># dependency checking on load (if a prerequisite like a superclass is
>>missing, your image is left untouched)
>># smart package updating (migrate an image from one snapshot to another,
>>performing the necessary additions and removals)
>># optimistic branching and merging (reconcile concurrent modifications to
>>a package, with conflict detection and resolution)
>># distributed versioning (store a package in as many repositories as you
>>want, moving version files freely between them, without losing branching
>>info)
>>
>>We think this is a major advance for those doing team development in
>>Squeak, and encourage people to try it out as soon as possible, but like
>>any first release there's a lot missing.  We'd really like to hear
>>feedback and suggestions for future functionality.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Avi
>>
>>Note to those using older versions of Monticello: first, my guess is that
>>you will want to start with a clean image, as a lot has changed with this
>>release.  Second, the old mode of using Monticello (fileout to .mc files
>>to be managed by CVS) has now been separated into the MonticelloCVS
>>package, which loads on top of the base Monticello package.  However, if
>>you're not going to use the new, native versioning features, there's not a
>>whole lot of benefit to upgrading in the first place.
> 
> 


-- 
julian at beta4.com
Beta4 Productions (http://www.beta4.com)