On Monday 17 February 2003 06:03 pm, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:

>  Q1:  Why are change sets saved in alphabetic order rather than
>       chronological order?  It seems obvious that this is likely to
>       break change sequences.
> 
>  Q2:  Is there any way I can tell change management to use
>  chronological order instead?
> 
>  Q3:  At the moment, I'm dealing with the problem by manually
>  shuffling the removal directives whenever I save a new version of
>  the change set.  Is there a better way to do this?

I would consider separating the installation into several change sets 
all stuck in a SAR. You can then load them in the proper order, 
and/or have conditional loading based on Squeak versions.

>  Q4:  I'd like the change set to be usable in 3.0, 3.2, and 3.4.
>       Is it OK if a change set file contains directives to remove
>  methods that don't exist?  How do I make one remove a method from a
>  _class_ that might not exist in some version?

I'd stick this in a preamble or postscript, generally, or in a 
separate change set for that specific version.

-- 
Ned Konz
http://bike-nomad.com
GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE