[Box-Admins] squeaksource.com image changes

Chris Muller asqueaker at gmail.com
Mon Oct 28 19:11:05 UTC 2013


I'm going through Dave's image and looking at all changes and merging
them into the current SqueakSource package maintained at
source.squeak.org/ss.

Dave's squeaksource.com image runs with a dirty Monticello package.
All but one of the changes appear to be in trunk.  The one that's not
-- Bert, you made this change to MCVersionMerger>>#addVersion: to
remove the lines indicated with an X in front:

addVersion: aVersion
     records add: (MCMergeRecord version: aVersion).
X     aVersion dependencies do:
X          [ : ea | | dep |
X          dep := ea resolve.
X          (records anySatisfy:
X               [ : r | r version = dep ]) ifFalse: [ self addVersion: dep ] ]

Does this need to be a permanent MC change?  What is the purpose of this?


On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:58 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 05:33:31PM +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> On 2013-10-02, at 17:17, "David T. Lewis" <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Would you mind putting a copy of the image and changes files for source.squeak.org
>> > on box3 so I can take a look at it (I don't have access to box2)? Thanks.
>>
>> Done: ~bertfreudenberg/
>>
>
> I have replaced the older squeaksource.com image with a newer image based on
> the source.squeak.org image that Bert provided. I activated the new image
> on box3.squeak.org today, and am monitoring it for problems.
>
> I started the repository export yesterday and completed the import to the new
> image today. During that period there have been no commits to squeaksource.com,
> so I anticipate no loss of data.
>
> The new image is called ~ssdotcom/SqueakSource/squeaksource.3.image. In the
> event of problems, the rollback plan is to reactivate the older
> ~ssdotcom/SqueakSource/squeaksource.2.image (see ~ssdotcom/README for details).
>
> Currently the new image is running and appears to work fine (although users
> may have noticed some brief outages, for which I apologize).  However it is
> currently consuming a heavy CPU load, so I am watching to see if this goes
> down (I have seen similar patterns in the past related to cache updates,
> which seem to settle down after a while). If the CPU load does not go back
> down within the next hour, I will revert back to the old image and try this
> again on another day.
>
> Dave
>


More information about the Box-Admins mailing list