No soy el único que no esta de acuerdo en como se estan haciendo las
cosas...
------ Mensaje reenviado
De: Andreas Raab <
[hidden email]>
Responder a: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
<
[hidden email]>
Fecha: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 01:54:28 -0800
Para: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
<
[hidden email]>
Asunto: Re: 1 day left for Squeak elections!
Hi Stef -
Two notes on your message:
> Our goal is to have a small image [...]
I will point out that since 3.6 (the first version where we had a
distinction between basic and full and where an image got substantially
smaller) the basic image has only grown; now to a size where it rivals
the size of 3.6 full. Mind you, the *basic* 3.9 image is almost as large
as the *full* 3.6. You can draw your own conclusions from that (easily
verifiable) fact.
> Now .cs are not the future. All the good project work with MC (croquet,
> sophie, seaside, tweak....
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but for our next project at VPRI we just
pulled out of Monticello. In short, Monticello is a great way of doing
things if you have an environment which is based on "builds" (e.g., you
basically throw existing content away, build a new system and load that
content back in).
For maintaining a live system Monticello is simply a nightmare. It's
slow, it doesn't work in the right way for incremental migrations and
you are spending 90% of your time to deal with situations that change
sets solve in a nano-second. It's simply not worth the hazzle for
maintaining a live system.
So I wouldn't declare change sets dead quite yet; neither would I claim
they are "not the future" when it comes to maintaining a live system. In
fact, I believe they are. For example, just compare how long it takes to
update a 3.7 to 3.8 image vs. 3.8 to 3.9 - it literally takes *ages*, it
requires "extra" change sets to do things that Monticello simply cannot
do and by the end of the day updating a 3.8 to current 3.9 alpha doesn't
even work. I cannot recall a single case of where this has ever happened
with change sets.
I think a discussion about how Monticello fits a working style that can
be used to maintain a live system is overdue by now. Having been there,
having seen the immense pain Monticello inflicts on both sides of the
maintenance chain (not only is it a pain for the person doing the
maintenance, it is also a pain for the person on the receiving end of
the maintenance) I think we can say with some certainty that Monticello
fails in this regard and that another approach is needed.
Cheers,
- Andreas
------ Fin del mensaje reenviado
___________________________________________________________
1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam
Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo
http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
correo electrónico a:
[hidden email]
correo electrónico a:
[hidden email]
Enlaces de Yahoo! Grupos
<*> Para visitar el sitio web del grupo, andá a:
http://ar.groups.yahoo.com/group/squeakRos/<*> Para cancelar tu suscripción a este grupo, enviá un mensaje a:
[hidden email]
<*> El uso de Yahoo! Grupos está sujeto a las:
http://ar.docs.yahoo.com/info/utos.html
Locked
