Colin Putney wrote:

>
> On Feb 11, 2004, at 3:10 PM, Doug Way wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>
> It's also important to differentiate between Monticello and MCInstaller.
>
> I completely agree that Monticello shouldn't be in Basic. It's a fair 
> amount of code directed at a narrow purpose, and it's perfectly 
> reasonable to expect users to install it from SM.
>
> OTOH, I think MCInstaller would be a reasonable addition to the base 
> image. It's just one class and it is broadly useful: it allows Squeak 
> to read a file format that Squeakers will encounter frequently.


Ah, right, that makes more sense.  MCInstaller sounds like a good 
addition, then.

- Doug