Well using MonticelloCVS is really not a huge leap... all it's doing is 
filing out changesets for you anyway.  The only differences are: a) the 
ordering and b) package definition, so you don't have to keep switching 
changesets if you're working on multiple distinct codesets at once (the 
changes to each package will be reflected in the appropriate package).

MCCVS is really just a smart file-out tool... it only requires the full 
Monticello package because it shares some of the model.

Anyway, up to you but I'd recommend the investment of 10 minutes to get 
it working... it's definitely better than filing out changesets.

Julian

Stefan Krecher wrote:
> thanks for all those interesting ideas.
> At the time i'm not using monticello, i'm just checking in the
> squeak-changesets into the svn-repository.
> The workaround with monticelloCVS sounds interesting but at the moment
> i don't have the need for using monticello (but I think I will want to
> use it, when I start playing around with it ;-).
> And since it seems that no one _realy_ needs a
> svn/monticello-backend-integration (not to mention a svn-frontend in
> squeak) I won't spend too much time on that.
> I think I'll try a workaround, maybe using the svn-command-line-client
> from CommandShell.
> 
> regards,
> Stefan
> 

-- 
   Julian Fitzell  --  Beta4 Productions
julian at beta4.com  --  http://www.beta4.com
Seaside: http://seaside.st/