07 Aug 2007 10:18:15 -0400, Lex Spoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > What shall we choose about Monticello and 3.10? Opening up the latest > development image and updating in the package browser, I see 4 > available versions of Monticello: > > - the version that comes with it > - version 1.5 > - the "bootstrap" version needed to install the above > - version 2
What I know of is: - "atomic loading" by Ralph - atomic loading by Keith (backported from Monticello2) - noatomic loading: -- several backports of Impara functionality into 3.9 in general also including a modified PackageInfo that supports preambles postscripts and works the MonticelloConfigurations in Squeak 3.9 - Monticello Public Modifications by Keith Cheers Philippe > It is really great to see so much attention being paid to Monticello! > For a network-maintained version of Squeak to work out, it is > essential to have a good system for loading and unloading packages. > > > For the specific issue of 3.10, though, we need to settle down on a > standard version, plus possibly some optional variants. The main > thing I am worried about are compatibility issues. While forks in > general are fine, it does not make sense to have a fork *within* the > 3.10 package universe. > > So let me ask a couple of questions to start with: > > 1. Which of these versions can be loaded simultaneously? If they > have overlapping class names, then they need to be marked as > conflicting, something that is not even supported in package > universes right now. > > 2. Can you load and save the same packages with all of these? We > need to insure that all packages in the 3.10 package universe can > loaded by all Monticello versions that we bless. > > > Lex > > > _______________________________________________ > V3dot10 mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/v3dot10 > _______________________________________________ V3dot10 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/v3dot10
