On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:

On 24 September 2011 20:40, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 24 September 2011 20:01, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Well...Martin and I have been working a little bit this week and here is
>> > a
>> > post explaining it:
>> >
>> > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/importing-and-exporting-packages-with-fuel/
>>
>> Cool!
>>
>> If I understand correctly, Fuel and Monticello (1; I don't know
>> anything about 2 other than noone seems to use it but it's much
>> better) accomplish two different things though: Fuel's a mechanism to
>> quickly load a bunch of stuff, while Monticello's much more
>> introspective: mainly, a bunch of definitions of things, with a
>> history pointing to previous versions of the package.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> I don't see how Fuel could replace Monticello,
>
> No, Fuel won't replace Monticello at all. They are different things.

Ah, OK. That means I misinterpreted "As you may imagine the idea is
that maybe in the future we can replace Monticello� mcz with Fuel
packages." You meant in the sense of an mcz being something you load
in your image, not somehow extending Fuel to a version control system
(which would ... not make sense :) ).

Exactly. Maybe the comment was not clear. What I mean is to change Monticello in the way that instead of serializing code into a mzc that contains the sources and the use the compiler, use Fuel to directly store/load the code in a binary way.
Is that better explained?
�
�

>> then, except in the
>> sense of "here's a chunk of stuff you can load into your image" -
>> which makes me think that one could simply replace the snapshot.bin
>> with a snapshot.fuel (or simply put it in the same directory, for a
>> loss in space but a gain in compatibility) and you'd have a much
>> faster loading mcz, right?
>
> Exactly. With Monticello right now you have to compile the sources.st, which
> may be slow and even more you need the compiler. The idea is to experiment a
> way of using Monticello to directly store binary/already compiled code.
> This way, it may be faster for exporting/importing the code.
> So....in summary, we will try to experiment to replace only a small part of
> Monticello ;)

Ah, excellent! I can't wait!

>> frank
>>
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@beta9.be>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 23 Sep 2011, at 11:47, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Cool Martin. Now I could do it as well. I have exported the groups
>> >> > 'Core', 'Tests' and 'Zinc-Seaside'.
>> >> > Then I materialize it a clean image and all tests (1567) are green.
>> >> > And
>> >> > it only takes 7 seconds :)
>> >>
>> >> Great !
>> >>
>> >> I want to try this myself soon.
>> >>
>> >> Sven
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> seaside mailing list
>> >> seaside@lists.squeakfoundation.org
>> >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Mariano
>> > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Mariano
> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
>
>