Thank you Colin and Avi for your supportive attitudes.  And yes, Colin, I
shouldn't have said "anywhere in the system" I meant anywhere just in my
packages.

Here is a suggestion for moving forward; we can use SqueakSource to create a
test-project where (I hope!!) I can reproduce the test-condition.  I'll
describe my exact steps to reproduce and then you'll be able to do it in this
same context.

I have to go now, but if that approach sounds good to you, I'll try getting it
set up sometime tomorrow.

 - Chris

--- Colin Putney <cputney at wiresong.ca> wrote:
> Chris Muller wrote:
> > Monticello is wonderful for one-click loading, but one-click saving still
> > eludes me.
> >
> > I just want to work on code anywhere in the system and then save my root
> > package to a repository and feel confident that it and the subpackages will
> be
> > recreated in the loading image just as they exist in my saving image.
> >
> > Does Monticello purport to meet this requirement or not?
> 
> It depends on what you mean by "anywhere in the system."
> 
> If you mean anywhere in the packages that you're managing with
> Monticello, then yes, saving your root package will do everything
> necessary to recreate the state of your dependent packages when you load
> that version of the root again. If it doesn't, it's a bug. I rely on
> this pretty heavily when developing OB, and haven't had any problems.
> 
> If "anywhere in the system" could include any code in the image, then
> no, Monticello doesn't support the requirement.
> 
> > If so, am I the only one experiencing this?  Perhaps I am overusing
> > dependencies; I counted and have dependencies that run *eight* levels deep.
>  Is
> > this insane?  Is there anything I can do to assist the maintainers in
> > reproducing this?
> 
> What are you experiencing? I interpret what you've said above to mean
> that you're not confident that dependencies behave the way you expect.
> Have you encountered behavior that you didn't expect?
> 
> 8 levels is a bit more than I have in OB, but it's not at all
> unreasonable. With that big a tree you might want to check that you
> haven't missed a dependency somewhere, but otherwise it ought to be fine.
> 
> Colin
> 
> 
>