release team proposal

Ralph Johnson johnson at
Fri Nov 24 18:59:11 UTC 2006

On 11/24/06, karl <karl.ramberg at> wrote:
> I have a question about tools. There are some issues with Monticello and
> refactoring where methods moved between packages disappears. Another
> issue is load ordering, Monticello does not do atomic loading. A third
> is dependencies between packages. These issues caused a lot of headache
> for the 3.9 guys. How should we approach these issues ?

I've only used MC for small projects, so am not sure about the problems with
large projects.  If MC loses methods then that is a bug.  Perhaps we will
go to MC2.  I don't know how soon MC2 will be ready or whether it will fix the
problems that the 3.9 team had with it.  I'm thinking about using Package
Universe as a way to make Squeak easier for novice Squeakers.  It handles
dependencies well.  Based on what I heard from the 3.9 team, I am not planning
to rely on MC for everything.

For a decade or so, I built large systems using only change files.  So, we can
always fall back on them if necessary.  But I've also used Envy and Store and
so would prefer higher-level tools.

The reason I say that my goal is to develop a process is because I am not
sure what the process should be.  We'll try some things and talk a lot about
it and I am sure we can figure something out.

What do you mean that MC doesn't do atomic loading?  It only loads one package
at a time, doesn't it?  Do you mean that it can die half-way through loading a
package, with some classes loaded and some not?  I know that normally a MC
package does not specify dependencies.  I think that is the purpose of the


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list