Salut Francois
> We've been bitten a few times at Ta Mère by the problem of changing 
> metacello configuration.

I agree. This is why I also think that released should point to version 
and not symbolic version.
What I do is that we can use versionner to release more often 
configurations pointing to the versions.
Christophe will continue to improve it.

> At the moment, we rely on the policy of "you should never change a 
> Metacello version once it has been published". Of course this is 
> fragile and we've ended up with different code loaded in different 
> environment while we were expecting stuff to be identical.
>
> Has anyone already tempted to centralize configurations/package in a 
> read-only place (S3? Azure Storage?). Something like RubyGems or 
> similar. It may be completely stupid to have centralised system but 
> I'm not satisfied with the infastructure supporting our configurations.
>
> Am I the only one having this problem? How do you handle it?
We are discussing in the team
- I was thinking that each project/package should have its own 
configuration saved in his repo.
     -- then the developer may choose to publish it to a central place.

- other are telling to me that other language have a central place.
This is ok too.
I would like to have a catalog of frozen versions per pharo version. Now 
this is two years that we request an engineering
to build a project validator and a catalog but we failed.

Stef