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
|