Hi all,
I'm very happy to announce that Monticello 2.0 is ready for download. This is a ground-up rewrite, using a new, more flexible and more performant versioning engine. http://www.wiresong.ca/static/releases/Monticello-current.zip A note about versioning numbers. In an effort to make releases easier to understand, I'm adopting a new scheme of version numbers for releases. They'll each have a major, a minor and a release number. Major numbers will be incremented only for major architectural changes or significant incompatibility with prior versions. Minor numbers will be incremented for significant new features, while release numbers will be incremented for *any* change to the code or documentation. This version, 2.0.17, is the first version of the 2.0 code base that I feel is ready for general use, though I've been using it for production code on several projects for several months now, and the basic versioning engine has been stable for quite some time. Version 2.0.17 has only been tested on Squeak 3.10, but I hope to add support for earlier versions of Squeak soon. Although MC 2.0 is stable and useful, there's one important feature that is still missing: a network enabled repository. The architectural differences between 1.x and 2.0 mean that the HTTP- and FTP-based repositories used with MC 1.x don't work well with 2.0. I'm planning to implement remote repositories in Monticello 2.1. As always, feedback is welcome. One thing I've learned in using MC 2 is that it's quite different than MC 1 and it takes a while to get used to it - even for me. This milestone has been a long time coming, and I'm glad to finally reach it, but it's really just the beginning. I'm looking forward to seeing what becomes of it. Colin |
Colin, It would be great if you could send a brief mail to the list describing what made you rewrite monticello and what are the new features or problems that it overcomes in this new incarnation. Also, where can we find more information about the design differences between 2.0 and the previous versions? Thanks and congratulations! Cheers r.
Hi all, I'm very happy to announce that Monticello 2.0 is ready for download. This is a ground-up rewrite, using a new, more flexible and more performant versioning engine. http://www.wiresong.ca/static/releases/Monticello-current.zip A note about versioning numbers. In an effort to make releases easier to understand, I'm adopting a new scheme of version numbers for releases. They'll each have a major, a minor and a release number. Major numbers will be incremented only for major architectural changes or significant incompatibility with prior versions. Minor numbers will be incremented for significant new features, while release numbers will be incremented for *any* change to the code or documentation. This version, 2.0.17, is the first version of the 2.0 code base that I feel is ready for general use, though I've been using it for production code on several projects for several months now, and the basic versioning engine has been stable for quite some time. Version 2.0.17 has only been tested on Squeak 3.10, but I hope to add support for earlier versions of Squeak soon. Although MC 2.0 is stable and useful, there's one important feature that is still missing: a network enabled repository. The architectural differences between 1.x and 2.0 mean that the HTTP- and FTP-based repositories used with MC 1.x don't work well with 2.0. I'm planning to implement remote repositories in Monticello 2.1. As always, feedback is welcome. One thing I've learned in using MC 2 is that it's quite different than MC 1 and it takes a while to get used to it - even for me. This milestone has been a long time coming, and I'm glad to finally reach it, but it's really just the beginning. I'm looking forward to seeing what becomes of it. Colin Generally, this communication is for informational purposes only and it is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument or as an official confirmation of any transaction. In the event you are receiving the offering materials attached below related to your interest in hedge funds or private equity, this communication may be intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of such fund(s). All market prices, data and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein do not necessarily reflect those of JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates. This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. Please refer to http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures for disclosures relating to UK legal entities. |
Hi,
you can have a look at the included documentation and at http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5624. On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote: > Colin, > It would be great if you could send a brief mail to the list describing what > made you rewrite monticello and > what are the new features or problems that it overcomes in this new > incarnation. > Also, where can we find more information about the design differences > between 2.0 and the > previous versions? > Thanks and congratulations! > Cheers > > > > r. > > > > > > > Colin Putney <[hidden email]> > Sent by: [hidden email] > > 11/08/2008 07:27 > > Please respond to > The general-purpose Squeak developers list > <[hidden email]> > To > The general-purpose Squeak developers list > <[hidden email]> > cc > Subject > [squeak-dev] [ANN] Monticello 2.0.17 > > > > > Hi all, > > I'm very happy to announce that Monticello 2.0 is ready for download. > This is a ground-up rewrite, using a new, more flexible and more > performant versioning engine. > > http://www.wiresong.ca/static/releases/Monticello-current.zip > > A note about versioning numbers. In an effort to make releases easier > to understand, I'm adopting a new scheme of version numbers for > releases. They'll each have a major, a minor and a release number. > Major numbers will be incremented only for major architectural changes > or significant incompatibility with prior versions. Minor numbers will > be incremented for significant new features, while release numbers > will be incremented for *any* change to the code or documentation. > > This version, 2.0.17, is the first version of the 2.0 code base that I > feel is ready for general use, though I've been using it for > production code on several projects for several months now, and the > basic versioning engine has been stable for quite some time. Version > 2.0.17 has only been tested on Squeak 3.10, but I hope to add support > for earlier versions of Squeak soon. > > Although MC 2.0 is stable and useful, there's one important feature > that is still missing: a network enabled repository. The architectural > differences between 1.x and 2.0 mean that the HTTP- and FTP-based > repositories used with MC 1.x don't work well with 2.0. I'm planning > to implement remote repositories in Monticello 2.1. > > As always, feedback is welcome. One thing I've learned in using MC 2 > is that it's quite different than MC 1 and it takes a while to get > used to it - even for me. This milestone has been a long time coming, > and I'm glad to finally reach it, but it's really just the beginning. > I'm looking forward to seeing what becomes of it. > > Colin > > > > ________________________________ > > Generally, this communication is for informational purposes only and it is > not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any > financial instrument or as an official confirmation of any transaction. In > the event you are receiving the offering materials attached below related to > your interest in hedge funds or private equity, this communication may be > intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of such > fund(s). All market prices, data and other information are not warranted as > to completeness or accuracy and are subject to change without notice. Any > comments or statements made herein do not necessarily reflect those of > JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates. This transmission may > contain information that is privileged, confidential, legally privileged, > and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, > distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any > reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and any > attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might > affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the > responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no > responsibility is accepted by JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and > affiliates, as applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from > its use. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately > contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in > electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. Please refer to > http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures for disclosures relating to UK > legal entities. > > > -- Damien Cassou Peter von der Ahé: «I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good luck». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu) |
In reply to this post by Colin Putney
Hi,
very very good news. I have some questions: - Would it be possible to include the documentation directly inside MC2 so that it is maintainable? I particularly think about tools documentation. You may want to add a Documentation command which displays the documentation. - Do you accept code and fixes? Through which process? - Why is there no timestamp associated with methods included in MC2? I suspect you used MC2 to generate 1-Monticello2.st :-) - What about writing the documentation in the MC2 wiki http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5624 instead of adding it to the zip file? Bye -- Damien Cassou Peter von der Ahé: «I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good luck». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu) |
In reply to this post by Colin Putney
Congratulations. Sorry I have not been able to compete with you yet. :)
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Colin Putney <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm very happy to announce that Monticello 2.0 is ready for download. This > is a ground-up rewrite, using a new, more flexible and more performant > versioning engine. > > http://www.wiresong.ca/static/releases/Monticello-current.zip > > A note about versioning numbers. In an effort to make releases easier to > understand, I'm adopting a new scheme of version numbers for releases. > They'll each have a major, a minor and a release number. Major numbers will > be incremented only for major architectural changes or significant > incompatibility with prior versions. Minor numbers will be incremented for > significant new features, while release numbers will be incremented for > *any* change to the code or documentation. > > This version, 2.0.17, is the first version of the 2.0 code base that I feel > is ready for general use, though I've been using it for production code on > several projects for several months now, and the basic versioning engine has > been stable for quite some time. Version 2.0.17 has only been tested on > Squeak 3.10, but I hope to add support for earlier versions of Squeak soon. > > Although MC 2.0 is stable and useful, there's one important feature that is > still missing: a network enabled repository. The architectural differences > between 1.x and 2.0 mean that the HTTP- and FTP-based repositories used with > MC 1.x don't work well with 2.0. I'm planning to implement remote > repositories in Monticello 2.1. > > As always, feedback is welcome. One thing I've learned in using MC 2 is that > it's quite different than MC 1 and it takes a while to get used to it - even > for me. This milestone has been a long time coming, and I'm glad to finally > reach it, but it's really just the beginning. I'm looking forward to seeing > what becomes of it. > > Colin > > |
In reply to this post by Damien Cassou-3
On 11-Aug-08, at 3:38 AM, Damien Cassou wrote: > - Would it be possible to include the documentation directly inside > MC2 so that it is maintainable? I particularly think about tools > documentation. You may want to add a Documentation command which > displays the documentation. That's a good idea. A super-simple in-image wiki that could then export the documentation as HTML. Perhaps for 2.1. > - Do you accept code and fixes? Through which process? Of course. The process is a little awkward because of the lack of a network-accessible repository. I'll make a repository file available so people can load the Monticello project, and you can send me contributions as mcr files. I'll integrate the contributions and repost the master repository. > - Why is there no timestamp associated with methods included in MC2? I > suspect you used MC2 to generate 1-Monticello2.st :-) Yes, both .st files are fileouts from an MC2 snapshot. There should be timestamps... I'll consider this the first bug report. > - What about writing the documentation in the MC2 wiki > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5624 instead of adding it to the zip > file? Well, I do want to make the docs available on the net, but I actually quite like this form of distribution. I think its important to give people a little more context than we usually do with Squeak dev tools. For those of us already active in the squeak community, it's pretty easy to find stuff - squeaksource, squeakmap, the wiki and ask questions on this list. For everyone else, it's far from obvious, and I like the idea of a single download that has everything you need to get started. Colin |
In reply to this post by Colin Putney
Hey Colin,
Playing around, the first thing I did (try to save a version of a Morphic slice) triggered an error. You can reproduce it easily with: MDTimestamp fromSqueakMethodStamp: 'di 9/18/97 10:10' Cheers, Avi On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Colin Putney <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm very happy to announce that Monticello 2.0 is ready for download. This > is a ground-up rewrite, using a new, more flexible and more performant > versioning engine. > > http://www.wiresong.ca/static/releases/Monticello-current.zip > > A note about versioning numbers. In an effort to make releases easier to > understand, I'm adopting a new scheme of version numbers for releases. > They'll each have a major, a minor and a release number. Major numbers will > be incremented only for major architectural changes or significant > incompatibility with prior versions. Minor numbers will be incremented for > significant new features, while release numbers will be incremented for > *any* change to the code or documentation. > > This version, 2.0.17, is the first version of the 2.0 code base that I feel > is ready for general use, though I've been using it for production code on > several projects for several months now, and the basic versioning engine has > been stable for quite some time. Version 2.0.17 has only been tested on > Squeak 3.10, but I hope to add support for earlier versions of Squeak soon. > > Although MC 2.0 is stable and useful, there's one important feature that is > still missing: a network enabled repository. The architectural differences > between 1.x and 2.0 mean that the HTTP- and FTP-based repositories used with > MC 1.x don't work well with 2.0. I'm planning to implement remote > repositories in Monticello 2.1. > > As always, feedback is welcome. One thing I've learned in using MC 2 is that > it's quite different than MC 1 and it takes a while to get used to it - even > for me. This milestone has been a long time coming, and I'm glad to finally > reach it, but it's really just the beginning. I'm looking forward to seeing > what becomes of it. > > Colin > > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |