[ANN] DVS rev. 1.28

danielv at netvision.net.il danielv at netvision.net.il
Fri Oct 18 22:24:38 UTC 2002


Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 danielv at netvision.net.il wrote:
> 
> > How do I see the differences between the image version and the file
> > version (which I understood is the whole point)?
> 
> Well, the point for me is more to fileIn the changes than to look at them
> - I tend to know what the changes are from the commit log.  So I don't
A commit log is a CVS feature, right? remember that people using DVS for
the logical modules without using CVS for concurrent development (like
me), will not have a commit log, just files with various versions...

> have a button for viewChanges.  It'll be simple to add one if
> you like (probably won't get done until Monday though).
Yup, I'll live with it.
 
> Something else I'd like to add is a "change log" option, that'll show
> what the image has that the disk doesn't (instead of the other way
> around), and help in producing those commit logs I just mentioned.
Um. sure, but don't the two displays contain the same information (the
differences)? I think I'm missing something here...
 
> > > Does this seem to
> > > onerous (or too much of a kludge)?
> > Yes :-) for a one class package, definitely. Not intolerable, probably,
> > but I'd prefer some lightweight route. Actually, I think it's important
> > that there be very near zero overhead from working with packages - that
> > keeps the smallest practical package really small.
> 
> True.  Although a one-class package is going to reqire its own system
> category either way, and once you have a category, adding a second class
> to it doesn't seem like a big deal... to me, anyway.
Reasonable people may disagree...
 
> > How about this -
> > A registry of regular PackageInfos, that registers the package when it's
> > first identified (PackageInfo named: 'SM-Loader' would register it) or
> > loaded (means saving it in the fileout as a do-it). This registry + the
> > subclasses is the list of packages.
> 
> Yeah, I was trying to avoid putting do-its into the fileout; that's one
> thing that's nice about having the class, it doesn't require any
> special-casing.
I agree completely that your solution is much nicer, cleaner code in
DVS, and keeping the fileouts strictly declarative is nicer than adding
do-its. But mine gives what this lazy user wants ;-) Please find a
better design for my requested feature...
 
> Hmm.  Well, does anyone else have an opinion?
> 
> Avi

Daniel Vainsencher



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list