1 day left for Squeak elections!
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Sat Feb 25 09:54:28 UTC 2006
Hi Stef -
Two notes on your message:
> Our goal is to have a small image [...]
I will point out that since 3.6 (the first version where we had a
distinction between basic and full and where an image got substantially
smaller) the basic image has only grown; now to a size where it rivals
the size of 3.6 full. Mind you, the *basic* 3.9 image is almost as large
as the *full* 3.6. You can draw your own conclusions from that (easily
verifiable) fact.
> Now .cs are not the future. All the good project work with MC (croquet,
> sophie, seaside, tweak....
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but for our next project at VPRI we just
pulled out of Monticello. In short, Monticello is a great way of doing
things if you have an environment which is based on "builds" (e.g., you
basically throw existing content away, build a new system and load that
content back in).
For maintaining a live system Monticello is simply a nightmare. It's
slow, it doesn't work in the right way for incremental migrations and
you are spending 90% of your time to deal with situations that change
sets solve in a nano-second. It's simply not worth the hazzle for
maintaining a live system.
So I wouldn't declare change sets dead quite yet; neither would I claim
they are "not the future" when it comes to maintaining a live system. In
fact, I believe they are. For example, just compare how long it takes to
update a 3.7 to 3.8 image vs. 3.8 to 3.9 - it literally takes *ages*, it
requires "extra" change sets to do things that Monticello simply cannot
do and by the end of the day updating a 3.8 to current 3.9 alpha doesn't
even work. I cannot recall a single case of where this has ever happened
with change sets.
I think a discussion about how Monticello fits a working style that can
be used to maintain a live system is overdue by now. Having been there,
having seen the immense pain Monticello inflicts on both sides of the
maintenance chain (not only is it a pain for the person doing the
maintenance, it is also a pain for the person on the receiving end of
the maintenance) I think we can say with some certainty that Monticello
fails in this regard and that another approach is needed.
Cheers,
- Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|