Your response shows that I have not made my point well. I wanted to point out that we need different workflows because of the different demands. A workflow is more than only a tool, but starts with people building something and ends with people using something. And you point out that versioner has one workflow implemented, and therefor will not be applicable to all projects.

A. For pharo core all projects are included in pharo. The number of external influences (VM, plugins) is very limited. It works here to have no configuration at all, since there is only 1 release-branch: the current one. And since the file server creates a version of each build, we can always go back to a specific build. Quality is very important to pharo as a lot of users depend on a good working pharo.

But it should not be like that! Pharo should be modular too. And we need to have configurations.
Why we cannot have better tools based on Roassal because we do not want to have a monolithic solution.
So we should have a modular image and tools and process to get there.




B. For the �cross-platform� projects this workflow is not sufficient, because there are much more external influences. So here we use the configurations to manage the releases. And the complexity of the configuration of Seaside shows this is a very complex thing to do. This complexity is not from Metacello. Metacello allows us to do a decent job here for the supported platforms. For the unsupported platforms there is some additional manual work involved, with all risks to this. The complexity here stems from the Software Configuration challenges Seaside faces. A simple inbox won�t do the job for us. Quality here is also very important as a lot of users depend on a good working Seaside. Also there are more demands on reproducibility, as there are quite some systems depending on Seaside that should function 24/7.

C. For the �moose� projects, we have a few advantages above the cross-platform projects, and a few disadvantages:
+ Moose only needs to work for pharo. So we can cut out a lot of platform specific junk. Some projects are suited for multiple platforms, but not for the amount of platform Seaside should work on.
+ There are far less projects depending on Moose. Most of them are integrated, so tests will automatically be fired. And the projects that do depend on Moose usually do not have run 24/7.
- Moose depends on more projects then Seaside. To create an exact version is therefor much harder.
- A large part of the Moose bugs comes from the change rate of the projects Moose depends on. Pharo has a very drastic strategy to improve its architecture. This causes quite some maintenance work.
So that there is no review is not the point. The point is that because of these different demands we need to accept a lower quality standard for moose. This lower quality standard is maybe undesirable, but is not easily improved. Having no review is a consequence of this, not the cause. If we want to improve this quality standard, better SCM tools will not suffice. On the other hand, this lower quality standard has so far worked for Moose, as there are less people who depend on Moose.

Regards,
Diego