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