Important for 3.9 submissions and fixes

Daniel Vainsencher daniel.vainsencher at gmail.com
Sat Sep 10 19:39:03 UTC 2005



Avi Bryant wrote:
> Actually, I think either way would work, because IIRC Monticello  
> doesn't actually use dependencies as a way to specify ordering,  simply 
> as a way to figure out which versions of which packages to  load 
> together.  It then dumps all of the methods and classes into a  big pool 
> and sorts out the load order itself.  As long as you make  sure to load 
> M.2 and E.2 at the same time, you should be fine.
I was talking about this aspect, not about internal ordering of loads. 
We want to make it impossible to load M.2 without loading E.2, and 
AFAIU, a dependency M.2->E.2 achieves that. OTOH, a dependency E.2->M.2 
would allow me to load M.2 alone, which would remove functionality. Am I 
right?

If so, that allows contributors to distribute their new versions in a 
form that specifies precisely how they need to be loaded, and then a 
maintainer doesn't have to figure it out, and we don't have to go back 
to change sets.

> As Marcus mentioned earlier, our current configurations system  
> *doesn't* do this - it's trying to enforce a particular order, and so  
> loads every package individually.  All in all, I think this is a  
> mistake.  In the rare cases where Monticello can't get the order  right 
> on its own, we can post sequential configurations to the update  stream 
> to force its hand.  Otherwise, I think we should be doing it  as a bulk 
> load.
Sounds right to me.

Daniel



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list