[squeak-dev] Re: Edgar from the Ostracism Re: Squeak 4.1 release candidate 2

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Tue Apr 6 16:38:46 UTC 2010

On 4/6/2010 5:04 AM, Juan Vuletich wrote:
> However, I don't think this is happening here at all. What I believe is
> happening is that Edgar has a clear vision on how the release process
> and released artifacts should be; but he fails to communicate it, and we
> fail to understand it. So, no real discussion happens, Edgar believes
> his proposals are rejected, and many would believe he never stated them
> clearly.
> This is my attempt to help fill the gap :)

Thanks for your help. I am plainly in the camp that thinks Edgar has 
never stated his ideas very clearly.

>>> Again I beg let 4.1 have dual way of updates.
>>> Plain old real .cs in his updates folder as others forks like Cuis have.
>> I don't understand the value of providing change sets separately.
>> Given that all the changes come in via Monticello why is using a
>> change set an advantage? Monticello may not be perfect but in
>> particular when merging distant ancestors Monticello is far superior
>> than change sets.
> Edgar is not advocating the use of change sets for building the release.
> He is asking for the automatic generation of change sets from MC, as
> another form of the release. I see two good uses for that. One is for
> somebody updating from the previous release and wanting to study in
> detail the changes that were made, perhaps for cherry picking. The other
> use is to help other forks (yes, like Cuis :) ) to follow what's going
> on, and integrate as appropriate.

What I really don't understand here is why you think that it's easier to 
do that with change sets rather than Monticello. I've merged lots of 
systems and before Monticello this was an insanely painful process. I 
found that with Monticello this became almost reasonable; still 
difficult but no longer outright insane.

>> Is there perhaps some other issue that you haven't mentioned and where
>> you see change sets as a possible solution? If so, could you elaborate
>> on that problem? There's a good chance that we may be able to come up
>> with a solution to that problem that doesn't involve producing change
>> sets from Monticello.
> Does that mean that producing change sets from MC is difficult or a bad
> thing?

Neither. It's just work and unfortunately none of us has much spare 
time. So I was wondering if there's perhaps something else you're trying 
to do that could be achieved more directly without going through change 

   - Andreas

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list