I am trying to understand the class PackageInfo better, especially where its instances are held. There seem to be two places in the image.
1. PackageOrganizer default packages - This is in the PackageInfo-Base package and therefore is independent of Monticello. You can see this list if you do PackageList open. Does anyone use that UI? If yes, what for? 2. MCWorkingCopy registry collect: [:each | each packageInfo] - This is the list of PackageInfos Monticello knows about and shows in the Monticello Browser.
In the current trunk image the first list is larger than the second, there are 24 PackageInfos Monticello does not know about: (PackageInfo allPackages difference: (MCWorkingCopy registry collect: [:each | each packageInfo]))
I cannot think of any use for those, so I think they are obsolete. I found a message send to remove them: MCWorkingCopy flushObsoletePackageInfos. I took some code from there and created a query method obsoletePackageInfos. I think this is useful. What do you think?
IMO MCWorkingCopy flushObsoletePackageInfos should be called in the trunk image. What do you think about that?
Cheers, Bernhard
Am 31.10.2010 um 15:55 schrieb commits@source.squeak.org:
A new version of Monticello was added to project The Inbox: http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Monticello-bp.406.mcz
==================== Summary ====================
Name: Monticello-bp.406 Author: bp Time: 31 October 2010, 4:38:59.454 pm UUID: 2bc8f189-09ca-4471-b0fe-89c70f4f379d Ancestors: Monticello-nice.405
added obsoletePackageInfos
=============== Diff against Monticello-nice.405 ===============
Item was added:
- ----- Method: MCPackageManager class>>obsoletePackageInfos (in category 'cleanup') -----
- obsoletePackageInfos
- "Answer all PackageInfos that are not associated with an MCPackageManager."
- | pkgNames |
- pkgNames := self allManagers collect: [:wcs | wcs packageName] as: Set.
- ^PackageOrganizer default packages select: [:p |
p class isObsolete or: [(pkgNames includes: p packageName) not]]!
On 31.10.2010, at 17:53, Bernhard Pieber wrote:
I am trying to understand the class PackageInfo better, especially where its instances are held. There seem to be two places in the image.
- PackageOrganizer default packages - This is in the PackageInfo-Base package and therefore is independent of Monticello. You can see this list if you do PackageList open. Does anyone use that UI? If yes, what for?
Only to inspect what packages are there.
- MCWorkingCopy registry collect: [:each | each packageInfo] - This is the list of PackageInfos Monticello knows about and shows in the Monticello Browser.
This does refer to the instances held by PackageOrganizer.
In the current trunk image the first list is larger than the second, there are 24 PackageInfos Monticello does not know about: (PackageInfo allPackages difference: (MCWorkingCopy registry collect: [:each | each packageInfo]))
I cannot think of any use for those, so I think they are obsolete. I found a message send to remove them: MCWorkingCopy flushObsoletePackageInfos. I took some code from there and created a query method obsoletePackageInfos. I think this is useful. What do you think?
IMO MCWorkingCopy flushObsoletePackageInfos should be called in the trunk image. What do you think about that?
Cheers, Bernhard
Should be part of the release process, yes. But since PackageInfo is independent of Monticello, there may be other uses of it. So a flush should not be forced unless you know what you're doing. When building a release, you do :)
- Bert -
Am 31.10.2010 um 15:55 schrieb commits@source.squeak.org:
A new version of Monticello was added to project The Inbox: http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Monticello-bp.406.mcz
==================== Summary ====================
Name: Monticello-bp.406 Author: bp Time: 31 October 2010, 4:38:59.454 pm UUID: 2bc8f189-09ca-4471-b0fe-89c70f4f379d Ancestors: Monticello-nice.405
added obsoletePackageInfos
=============== Diff against Monticello-nice.405 ===============
Item was added:
- ----- Method: MCPackageManager class>>obsoletePackageInfos (in category 'cleanup') -----
- obsoletePackageInfos
- "Answer all PackageInfos that are not associated with an MCPackageManager."
- | pkgNames |
- pkgNames := self allManagers collect: [:wcs | wcs packageName] as: Set.
- ^PackageOrganizer default packages select: [:p |
p class isObsolete or: [(pkgNames includes: p packageName) not]]!
Monticello-bp.406.mcz is still in the Inbox.
What should be done about it?
--Hannes
On 11/1/10, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 31.10.2010, at 17:53, Bernhard Pieber wrote:
I am trying to understand the class PackageInfo better, especially where its instances are held. There seem to be two places in the image.
- PackageOrganizer default packages - This is in the PackageInfo-Base
package and therefore is independent of Monticello. You can see this list if you do PackageList open. Does anyone use that UI? If yes, what for?
Only to inspect what packages are there.
- MCWorkingCopy registry collect: [:each | each packageInfo] - This is
the list of PackageInfos Monticello knows about and shows in the Monticello Browser.
This does refer to the instances held by PackageOrganizer.
In the current trunk image the first list is larger than the second, there are 24 PackageInfos Monticello does not know about: (PackageInfo allPackages difference: (MCWorkingCopy registry collect: [:each | each packageInfo]))
I cannot think of any use for those, so I think they are obsolete. I found a message send to remove them: MCWorkingCopy flushObsoletePackageInfos. I took some code from there and created a query method obsoletePackageInfos. I think this is useful. What do you think?
IMO MCWorkingCopy flushObsoletePackageInfos should be called in the trunk image. What do you think about that?
Cheers, Bernhard
Should be part of the release process, yes. But since PackageInfo is independent of Monticello, there may be other uses of it. So a flush should not be forced unless you know what you're doing. When building a release, you do :)
- Bert -
Am 31.10.2010 um 15:55 schrieb commits@source.squeak.org:
A new version of Monticello was added to project The Inbox: http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Monticello-bp.406.mcz
==================== Summary ====================
Name: Monticello-bp.406 Author: bp Time: 31 October 2010, 4:38:59.454 pm UUID: 2bc8f189-09ca-4471-b0fe-89c70f4f379d Ancestors: Monticello-nice.405
added obsoletePackageInfos
=============== Diff against Monticello-nice.405 ===============
Item was added:
- ----- Method: MCPackageManager class>>obsoletePackageInfos (in category
'cleanup') -----
- obsoletePackageInfos
- "Answer all PackageInfos that are not associated with an
MCPackageManager."
- | pkgNames |
- pkgNames := self allManagers collect: [:wcs | wcs packageName] as:
Set.
- ^PackageOrganizer default packages select: [:p |
p class isObsolete or: [(pkgNames includes: p packageName) not]]!
My only objection to it is the method name. I think it should be #unregisteredPackageInfos, not "obsoletePackageInfos".
- Chris
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Hannes Hirzel hannes.hirzel@gmail.com wrote:
Monticello-bp.406.mcz is still in the Inbox.
What should be done about it?
--Hannes
On 11/1/10, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 31.10.2010, at 17:53, Bernhard Pieber wrote:
I am trying to understand the class PackageInfo better, especially where its instances are held. There seem to be two places in the image.
- PackageOrganizer default packages - This is in the PackageInfo-Base
package and therefore is independent of Monticello. You can see this list if you do PackageList open. Does anyone use that UI? If yes, what for?
Only to inspect what packages are there.
- MCWorkingCopy registry collect: [:each | each packageInfo] - This is
the list of PackageInfos Monticello knows about and shows in the Monticello Browser.
This does refer to the instances held by PackageOrganizer.
In the current trunk image the first list is larger than the second, there are 24 PackageInfos Monticello does not know about: (PackageInfo allPackages difference: (MCWorkingCopy registry collect: [:each | each packageInfo]))
I cannot think of any use for those, so I think they are obsolete. I found a message send to remove them: MCWorkingCopy flushObsoletePackageInfos. I took some code from there and created a query method obsoletePackageInfos. I think this is useful. What do you think?
IMO MCWorkingCopy flushObsoletePackageInfos should be called in the trunk image. What do you think about that?
Cheers, Bernhard
Should be part of the release process, yes. But since PackageInfo is independent of Monticello, there may be other uses of it. So a flush should not be forced unless you know what you're doing. When building a release, you do :)
- Bert -
Am 31.10.2010 um 15:55 schrieb commits@source.squeak.org:
A new version of Monticello was added to project The Inbox: http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Monticello-bp.406.mcz
==================== Summary ====================
Name: Monticello-bp.406 Author: bp Time: 31 October 2010, 4:38:59.454 pm UUID: 2bc8f189-09ca-4471-b0fe-89c70f4f379d Ancestors: Monticello-nice.405
added obsoletePackageInfos
=============== Diff against Monticello-nice.405 ===============
Item was added:
- ----- Method: MCPackageManager class>>obsoletePackageInfos (in category
'cleanup') -----
- obsoletePackageInfos
- "Answer all PackageInfos that are not associated with an
MCPackageManager."
- | pkgNames |
- pkgNames := self allManagers collect: [:wcs | wcs packageName] as:
Set.
- ^PackageOrganizer default packages select: [:p |
- p class isObsolete or: [(pkgNames includes: p packageName) not]]!
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Bernhard Pieber -
Bert Freudenberg -
Chris Muller -
Hannes Hirzel