Hi bert

>>> I think that we should also include Monticello as a package in 
>>> 3.8/3.9.
>>> I see two reasons to do this, one short term one long term.
>>
>> We actually discussed this a bit earlier (although no one summarized 
>> the reasons as well as you did here) and generally agreed that 
>> Monticello should go in 3.8.  It's actually in the plan for 3.8:
>>
>> http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3832
>
> I assume you're speaking about the full image, right? We agreed 
> earlier on that no packaging system should go into the base image, but 
> only the infrastructure necessary to build one, in particular 
> PackageInfo. I agree it should make it into the full image which has 
> all sorts of developer tools.

Yes. I have the impression that 'Services' may be worth as a 
registration mechanism to be in basic
(but I would have to check that) because I see them at the same level 
as the FileListRegistry objects.
And I do not see the point for now to have the filelistRegsitration out 
of the basic too.
These way all the tools in the image could be using services. and all 
the other tools could use that too.


Stef

>
> - Bert -
>
>