On 9/7/09 5:57 PM, "Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:

> One is how to label the image properly. I'd say that given we're using
> Monticello, the update number is somewhat useless in this context. I
> would argue that a dated version (i.e., SqueakX.Y-090907 for Sept 7th,
> 2009) is more adequate. And yes, we could shorten that to "update number
> 90907" if we wanted to ;-)

I don't see why using Monticello exclude update number or version number.

> The second question is whether or not to provide (numbered) change sets.
> I have virtually no opinion on that since I find change sets inferior to
> Monticello as change sets lack the context and history provided with
> Monticello packages. If people find change sets helpful, then I guess
> yes we should provide them, but I'd rather have us invest more time into
> improving Squeak than providing a service that is rarely of use for people.

Maybe some like Monticello and more not , but afraid to say it.
No point in arguing more.

Edgar