Changesets, Monticello and SqueakMap

Hi,

at the moment I try to figure out how the three configuration
management approaches fit together. After switching to Monticello
I found my life a lot easier :) Monticello is of great help!

Then I noticed that changesets are named after the Monticello
package that was last imported. I'm not quite sure if changesets
have any benefit if someone is using monticello.

Then there is squeakmap. Squeakmap seems to be the official
release server. Is squeakmap tied to a special format? Can
squeakmap use monticello  packages as well? I'm asking because I
had problems to find any version information on squeakmap (beside
the squeakmap version).

While reading the squeak lists it appeared to me that a lot of
you are developing with monticello and releasing on squeakmap. But
I didn't find any information about the source (e.g. monticello
version) version.

I think it would be great to install a release from squeakmap and
having the opportunity to open monticello and see which newer
versions (and most important what changes) have been made. The
squeakmap packages could also add their repository to monticello
when they are installed.

The only reason against it I can imagine is that this would introduce
dependencies which aren't wanted.

Norbert

_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

Hi!

Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> at the moment I try to figure out how the three configuration
> management approaches fit together. After switching to Monticello

Mmmm, they are three quite different beasts. I wouldn't call SqueakMap a
"configuration management approach". :)

> I found my life a lot easier :) Monticello is of great help!

Indeed.
 
> Then I noticed that changesets are named after the Monticello
> package that was last imported. I'm not quite sure if changesets
> have any benefit if someone is using monticello.

Well, they are still useful as a "plainer" format for small fixes etc.
We still use them on Mantis as attachments for fixes.
A ChangeSet is very much like a "patch" in unix land. But they can be
terribly confusing to work with.

> Then there is squeakmap. Squeakmap seems to be the official
> release server. Is squeakmap tied to a special format? Can

SqueakMap is a catalog. Yes, it is official and *currently* there is
only one (SM3 is being planned and is intended to be able to work in a
more distributed fashion with multiple "mixin" servers).

No, it is not tied to a special format.

> squeakmap use monticello  packages as well? I'm asking because I

Oh, yes it can.

> had problems to find any version information on squeakmap (beside
> the squeakmap version).

Unsure what you mean. You should be able to easily see the releases and
their download URLs and thus the formats.
In short - SM supports IIRC:

.pr - Project files.
.cs .st .cs.gz .st.gz - ChangeSets and regular old fileouts, compressed
or not.
.sar - Squeak ARchives (a zip file with some conventions)
.mcz - Monticello snapshots (using either MCInstaller or Monticell -
whichever your image has)


> While reading the squeak lists it appeared to me that a lot of
> you are developing with monticello and releasing on squeakmap. But
> I didn't find any information about the source (e.g. monticello
> version) version.

Monticello only has one version of the format so far. So it doesn't
matter which version of Monticello you use.
Btw, I recommend using a newer Monticello than the one on SM (not sure
why Avi hasn't made a new SM release): .279

> I think it would be great to install a release from squeakmap and
> having the opportunity to open monticello and see which newer
> versions (and most important what changes) have been made. The

Mmmm, you can do that. But sure, you need to add the correct MC repo to
look in manually.

> squeakmap packages could also add their repository to monticello
> when they are installed.

Yes, that would be neat. I have actually planned to add a "Repository"
field to packages, but a small snag was how to represent a repo
textually. I did consider to use the "doit" that creates it, just like
in MC. But that would be a nasty security hole - unless I add
restrictions on it. An alternative would be to invent a "URLish" syntax
for MC repos.
 
> The only reason against it I can imagine is that this would introduce
> dependencies which aren't wanted.

Not sure how you mean.

regards, Göran

PS. I wrote and maintain SqueakMap so feel free to ask me anything about
it.
_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 21:33 +0200, [hidden email] wrote: Ok, sounds reasonable.
I wasn't clear on that point. I meant something different. If you
use monticello each save operation creates a package-author-id info.
I was wondering that if there is a package released based on a
monticello snapshot that monticello package information isn't mentioned
in the squeakmap release.
> > I think it would be great to install a release from squeakmap and
> > having the opportunity to open monticello and see which newer
> > versions (and most important what changes) have been made. The
>
> Mmmm, you can do that. But sure, you need to add the correct MC repo to
> look in manually.
>
I meant not only to see the difference between the monticello version
and the version in the image. Usually if I install packages via
monticello I can see which version it is. And I don't think there is a
chance that the version which I installed from squeakmap gets
highlighted in monticello.
> > squeakmap packages could also add their repository to monticello
> > when they are installed.
>
> Yes, that would be neat. I have actually planned to add a "Repository"
> field to packages, but a small snag was how to represent a repo
> textually. I did consider to use the "doit" that creates it, just like
> in MC. But that would be a nasty security hole - unless I add
> restrictions on it. An alternative would be to invent a "URLish" syntax
> for MC repos.
The code snippet for adding the repo could be displayed in the package
description. As these code snippets can be clickable it would be an
easy way to do without any side effects.
Maybe it is possible to tell Monticello which version this package has
and it would be the same as installing this particular version from
monticello. It would be highlighted as any other package which has been
installed via monticello.
>  
> > The only reason against it I can imagine is that this would introduce
> > dependencies which aren't wanted.
>
> Not sure how you mean.
>
Just wild guessing :)

thanks,

Norbert

> PS. I wrote and maintain SqueakMap so feel free to ask me anything about
> it.
I will. Thanks, you are very helpful.



_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

Norbert,

There is a document I created with the intend to explain Monticello, SqueakMap
and SqueakSource, mostly to myself :) . It is not finished by far, so I hope
it will not mislead you (only the first third is what I would consider
finished, up to about step 1.4 and also skip the "Project Terms and
Comparison of Tools" wich is still wrong)

http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5878

Milan

On 2007 January 29 14:03, Norbert Hartl wrote: _______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners