Bert Freudenberg wrote:
..
> If it is only one method, a .mcd relative to the "official" version  is 
> very small.

But you still need the package against which the .mcd goes for loading 
it, no?

>> For private use this may not look much different. For instance, I  am 
>> regularly "fixing some inflexibilities of the official image"  before 
>> I use it, by overriding some things of the UI and perhaps  other 
>> things. Is that better done by creating some big modified  versions of 
>> original packages just because of a few changed  methods? When the 
>> next image - or worse the next interim update -  comes out, I would 
>> have to sort out my few changes from the  possibly many official 
>> changes applied to the package in the meantime.
> 
> 
> Monticello is designed to allow precisely this style of development.  
> You just merge your version with the official version and you're  done. 
> As a developer you should of course enable the #upgradeIsMerge  preference.
>

Would it extract the methods I am going to override, that have changed 
since I replaced them originally?

>> As long as you are developing a master image, it is the right way  to 
>> create modified versions of original packages. They immediately  
>> become the new originals;) This kind of work is wonderfully  supported 
>> by Monticello with its many merging facilities.  Nonetheless, if you 
>> want to develop a second master *partly*  synchronized with another 
>> master line, there will be much work  waiting for you, accumulating 
>> over time...
> 
> 
> This is a false assertion. Did you actually try? I regularily have  
> private changes to "official" packages. Upgrading them works great.
>

No, I didn't try it. Impara seems to try.

>> For all other purposes that want to derive from a master but want  to 
>> develop with the master (and that is the standard case), some  sort of 
>> "delta functionality" is needed. This delta should be as  smoothly as 
>> possible addable to the next version of the master,  because this work 
>> has to be done manifold (by the millions of the  future, that are 
>> going to use Squeak:)
> 
> 
> Like .mcd?
>

Like being able to get (only) the hot spot methods presented, the 
overrides whose originals changed in the meantime, so that they are now 
not overriding anymore what they did when being programmed. Moreover I 
would like to have only one "delta-package" for one official release and 
not many mcd-files which I would to have handle one by one.

>> Monticello seems to me not being so well suited for this task.  Either 
>> it should be accompanied by a module system like the one of  Henrik, 
>> or perhaps it is sufficient that it will be extended with  this delta 
>> functionality.
> 
> 
> It seems to me you're just not comfortable using Monticello, yet.  This 
> may point out an interface problem. I'm open to suggestions (or  even 
> better, code).
> 

Yes, there is an interface problem. It starts with the bubble help 
repeating what the buttons "merge" and "load" themselves say. 
Unfortunately I don't know exactly what "load" and "merge" means, so I 
can't send you code ;)

Regards,
Martin