[ANN] Monticello Versioning

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at netvision.net.il
Fri Jul 25 09:42:32 UTC 2003


> But is it really that bad to just distribute stuff as .mcv, and force
> people to load Monticello if they want to use it?
I put Garden on SM, but it probably doesn't show up because it is not
installable, because it is an mcv. Its funny, because the SMLoader ui
was designed to create a packaging arms-race, and lo and and behold, it
did, and I'm its victim ;-)

Now that most installers come builtin to the image, people effectively
expect everything to be autoinstallable.

[what would be required for an installer]
I wouldn't advise you to start refactoring just to create a smaller
installer. As a user of the format, I would prefer a minimal installer
be included in the image, so that I can post packages as mcv file
directly. If this doesn't happen, I'll probably start releasing stuff as
st files that load MC and then an mcv, which works but is awkward.

Daniel

Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
> > BTW, from a quick glance at MC, seems to me that the following might be
> > removable -
> > * Tests
> > * UI
> > * Mocks
> > * Storing
> > * Merging
> > * Patching?
> 
> Bootstrap, Tests, Mocks for sure.  UI and Merging could go if this were
> just for users of packages, not developers.  Storing is actually used
> right now for loading as well, although that doesn't have to be true if
> we're trying to slim down.
> 
> Base, Modelling, Loading, Patching, and Versioning would definitely be
> needed.  Patching is used during updates (a patch is produced between the
> image and the version you're loading, and then that patch is applied to
> the image).  That's about 30 classes, whatever that means.
> 
> But is it really that bad to just distribute stuff as .mcv, and force
> people to load Monticello if they want to use it?



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list