goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:

>Hehe, that is also true - we need to issue an update that installs SM2.
>That would essentially be the same as running the "SqueakMap" loadscript
>- but not *exactly*, because it opens a package loader at the end.
>
>I can look it over and produce a new one as a .cs with a postscript
>later today.
>

That sounds good, I'll look for that.

Did you want to have this SM2 installer update contain the actual SM2 
code, or just be a command which install it remotely via the SM server?  
Up until now, we've always just included code in the updates, so that 
the update stream is only ever dependent on the update server (with its 
backup). We generally don't want the update stream to be dependent on a 
bunch of servers, such that if any one of them is down, updates don't work.

We could possibly change this policy, though, if the SM server is as 
dependable as the update servers, having a backup, etc.  (And using the 
server cache if necessary.)

The same issue applies to the rest of this thread... whether we want to 
be loading SUnit as a Monticello package from SM.  (It would be loading 
from SM, right?  Or would it be SqueakSource or something else?)  So, if 
SM is the only other server involved (besides the updates server), and 
it has a backup, perhaps that's fine.

(And of course, now that we have SM2 with version support, we can rely 
on an update loading a specific version which will be unchanged in the 
future.)

>PS. This would also mean that we pull in VersionNumber and MCInstaller
>into 3.7 Basic - but that seems alright to me.
>

Adding the Monticello installer in Basic is another issue which Michael 
& others posted about before.  I'm personally fine with adding it.  That 
may make Monticello a defacto standard and it may viral itself into a 
lot of code, but the same is true of changesets, and if MC is a good 
addition/successor to the changeset format, maybe that's a good thing.  
(Life would be pretty difficult if we insisted on not having ChangeSets 
or anything else as a standard, for example. :-) )  I'm still not 
totally clear on where the dividing line between MC and PackageInfo is, 
I need to play around with MC more.  But it sounds like we want the 
fuller capabilities of MC.

- Doug

By the way everyone, I worked on incorporating the latest updates last 
night, but there are a lot of them, so I didn't get finished... will try 
to finish tonight.  After that, we may just have one more updates round 
before beta.