Proposal for the coming versions

Cees de Groot cg at cdegroot.com
Mon Mar 13 18:45:25 UTC 2006


On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:13:38 -0800, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>
wrote:
>Because, while I agree 
>that using MC with the update stream model is painful, it seems that the 
>cause of that pain is purely and unequivocally Monticello itself.

Personally, I would point my finger at the use of MC instead of MC
itself (MC seems to be not fit for a particular purpose its creators
probably never reckoned with). Anyway, I wasn't assigning "blame", I
was just remarking that there was a conflict here.

>If we apply this logic to 3.9 (just to understand the model you're 
>proposing) would this mean we'd still be in a situation where a user 
>who'd want to have a look at the latest alpha would effectively go 
>through a process by which she downloads a 3.8 image, figures out in 
>which order to load the latest (or new/removed) packages and does that 
>all by herself? Have you tried that lately? ;-)

Nope. My idea is that during "fast development", the team leader just
publishes images. And probably an MCC map or something similar showing
how the image is put together. So the user would effectively have to
download the image to hop across major upgrades. Minor upgrades would
likely be doable by just udating using the MCC map. For some value of
"major" and "minor", of course :)

Yes, that's bad (for people with low bandwidth, for starters).
However, it buys time to fix the issues with Monticello, so that
hopefully later on a "upgrade v.X to v.Y" button can be reinstated. 




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list