Monticello bugfixes
lex at cc.gatech.edu
lex at cc.gatech.edu
Tue Nov 9 18:16:08 UTC 2004
> > No, you can't do this by saving all the dirty packages. But you can do
> > it by saving the top-level packages - that is, the packages that you'd
> > like to reconstruct in another image. Is there some reason this isn't
> > adequate?
Chris Muller <afunkyobject at yahoo.com> wrote:
> It probably would be if saving top-level packages automatically saved the
> entire tree, it does not seem to. In my case, saving the top-level packages is
> not adequate because the intermediate packages ("B") referencing "C" do not get
> saved when saving the top-level packages ("A"). So if I have clean A, B and C
> (per our same example), make a change to C, then save A (or save C followed by
> saving A) *without* ever resaving B and then try to load A into a fresh image,
> Monticello reports "Can't find dependency".
Ah, we are getting there! I have not tested closely, but I got the
impression that this particular scenario would work fine, but a slight
change would exhibit the problem.
Suppose you add another package D which C depends on.
A
/ \
B C
|
D
Make a change to D, and then save A. Monticello seems to check B and C,
see that they are not dirty, and then not look any further. So, it
never even notices that D is dirty; the only package that gets saved is
A.
It would be nice if this scenario worked. As a possible bonus, it would
be nice if A itself did not get saved if there were no changes made.
-Lex
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|