My own gripe about the focus of squeak development.
Jon Hylands
jon at huv.com
Fri Dec 17 03:51:12 UTC 2004
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:50:31 -0500, Alan Grimes <alangrimes at starpower.net>
wrote:
> I would have no complaint if this were a key piece of
> software vital to all squeakers everywhere. However, Squeakmap -- which
> I assume is a mostly distinct technology, is already quite satisfactory
> for most of my needs, and the needs of most users I expect.
Well, SqueakMap and Monticello are two very different things. SqueakMap is
a code/package repository, and Monticello is a code versioning system.
I am exceptionally happy to have Monticello in Squeak -- I can now version
all my packages, and it makes it much simpler to move code between images.
The other big single-user advantage Monticello has to me over changesets is
that I don't need to remember what change set is current all the time. When
I used change sets for stuff, if I was working on several different
packages in a single image, I usually ended up with changes getting jumbled
in together, even when I tried to use projects to manage the change sets.
With Monticello, the package a piece of code belongs to is fixed, and its
one less thing you have to think about.
Later,
Jon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hylands Jon at huv.com http://www.huv.com/jon
Project: Micro Seeker (Micro Autonomous Underwater Vehicle)
http://www.huv.com
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|