Update stream loading from SM/Monticello (was Re: [FIX]
SUnit-combined-md)
ducasse
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Wed Feb 11 20:39:06 UTC 2004
>
> 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.
Hi doug
I agree with you. My impression is that we should "let live and let
die": let MC become so cool and convenient
that changesets will be as a strange and obsolete format. Because soon
we will have a binary format (or I do not understand
evolution :)).
For example nowadays if you would send me your code in changeset
without a binary parcel in VisualWorks
and it would take 25 min to load vs 5 s, I would think that you are an
odd man :) (gee I did that before parcels waiting 20 min
that RB would load in a non atomic manner).
So what is important to let Squeak modifies itself this means that we
should not prevent MC to get better and better.
Stef
>
> - 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.
Doug I will try to harvest all the recent fix related to transparent
color/form/and related.
I think that people should review the features they want to see or
lobby a bit marcus and I because lot of stuff got accumulated
in the fix queue.
>
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|