Hi!

Eliot Miranda wrote:
> David,
> 
>     for me the crucial advantage a ChangeSet has is in not defining the 
> rest of the package.  Currently I'm trying to e port the latest version 
> of the closure compiler from Qwaq to Squeak and Pharo.  As you can see 
> from the recent commits this cuts across 6 packages, all of which 
> contain distro-specific code.  With ChangeSet based tools there is the 
> (admittedly slim and still arduous) possibility of producing a single 
> linear sequence of changes which could correctly update both Squeak and 
> Pharo.  But using packages I can't do better than a painful integration 
> process that produces 16 packages.  I like Monticello but in this case, 
> complex code updates with ordering constraints that overlap packages, 
> ChangeSets (assuming similar levels of tool support) would be much better.

Just as an *obvious* note in all this: Deltas!

One of the primary goals of Deltas (the Delta part of DeltaStreams) is 
to fully replace Changesets. Deltas are IMHO strictly better than 
Changesets but give you the same advantages and much, much more.

Also, a Delta is an *ordered list* of changes instead of a Set which 
means that a single crafted Delta can do the same as you do now with a 
controlled series of Changesets. And yes, we do allow doits in Deltas, 
but in a carefully *explicitly marked* way. I will post in an hour on 
that sub-subject to get some feedback on the approach we are taking.

regards, Göran