Hi Levente,

> > This version is intended to alleviate our concerns about readability
> > by making the number no longer than someone's local phone number.
>
> I still don't like this idea. Why?
> - while single version numbers are not too large, the system version
> number would still be 7 digits long

You mean, instead of 5?

> - the version number would lose information about the number of commits of
> the given package. You may argue that it's not exact, but it still gives a
> good estimate.

This is an easy number to calculate when the file is open and include
in header descrption of a VersionInfo...  For example:

Name: Monticello-cmm.66240
Author: cmm
Time: 16 February 2019, 4:49:51.685281 pm
UUID: 435c7c35-3b22-4f66-b733-070ccd48a980
Ancestors (684): Monticello-eem.684

> - the change is focused too much on the Trunk, while Monticello is used in
> other places too

I don't understand this.  This is about Monticello's model, it has
nothing to do with trunk.

> - it solves a problem that happens way too infrequently (different
> packages with the same name)

It's actually not.  Working in Squeak on two separate laptops (i.e.,
home vs. work) is very common, but incredibly onerous because it
*frequently* results in duplicate package names.

This is more than "solving a problem",  it enables a new power of
simultaneous streams of development on the same packages in different
images -- with no danger of duplicates.

Moreover, it's an elegant way for Monticello to realize its goal of
providing a distributed code model.

> - you can't commit the same package twice within a minute, which is a
> something you do when you want to split multiple changes up into different
> commits

Of course you can.  This is just the default generated name, the user
or system can increment the number as needed.

 - Chris