On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 02:16 -0500, Ralph Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Norbert Hartl<norbert at hartl.name> wrote:
> 
> > I still don't think that Monticello is the right way to go. It doesn't
> > really manage changes. I can so easily overwrite a change that was
> > applied before that it is hard to use. You can argue that you have to
> > be careful anyway and that you can merge. You are right but still it
> > is hard to use. Another thing is pharo. All of my contribution to the
> > image I did in pharo because I never saw much a chance to do this in
> > squeak. Now it can be doable. And doing something in pharo and not be
> > able to do it in squeak at the same time strikes me really. Using
> > always Monticello with full source compare will prevent applying fixes
> > from one team to the other. The sources are just more different every
> > day.
> 
> Convert the changes into a change set.  File the change set into each
> system and then create a new Monticello file for each system.
> 
> Andreas said that the repository will hold MC files.  He didn't say
> you couldn't use change sets on your own.  Or any other tool you want
> to use.  Use whatever you want to get your work done, then post it in
> a standard format.
> 

Ralph,

I'm aware that it is doable. But you must see that there is a difference
between having the opportunity to file in the same thing with little 
tweaking to multiple targets instead of first creating the target files
in a cumbersome way. Don't take this too literally. It will work somehow
to do this with Monticello. But as there is a tension to lower barriers
I just thought making that barrier lower is also wanted. That's all what
I wanted to say.

And...perhaps I didn't here much discussion about what goran was saying.
I understand people if they don't see much sense in using a piece of 
software that hasn't matured yet for the management of their stuff. But
this could still be a part of the refreshing actions.

Norbert