Andreas Raab wrote:
> 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.

So, Edgar, please take more time to write your messages. Perhaps get 
some of your SqueakRos friends to check and discuss them before sending.

>>>> 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.

Now I'm speaking just for myself. Cuis doesn't include Monticello. My 
experience with Monticello has been different. I chose not to include 
it. I can go in more detail, but you know Monticello's strengths and 
weaknesses as well as I do. So, to integrate stuff from Squeak, I need 
to create some change sets. That task could be automated and save a 
little time.

>>> 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 sets.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas

Not me.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich