Monticello 2 question (sort of)

Philippe Marschall philippe.marschall at gmail.com
Sat Apr 28 21:33:22 UTC 2007


And RB does not always record changes.

Cheers
Philippe


2007/4/28, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse at free.fr>:
> Just a remark yu may have noticed (in that case do not care of my
> remarks)
> that changeset do not record the changes themselves but the fact that
> something changed.
> You cannot have two versions of the same method in different cs
> loaded in the image.
>
>
> On 27 avr. 07, at 21:24, J J wrote:
>
> > So, I guess this was a dumb question?
> >
> > I am curious because I was considering testing some code myself to
> > make a current generation change management system based on the
> > change set mechanism that Squeak already has.  But if Monticello 2
> > is already going to do this then I'll just wait and focus on other
> > things.
> >
> >
> >> From: "J J" <azreal1977 at hotmail.com>
> >> Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list<squeak-
> >> dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> >> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> >> Subject: Monticello 2 question (sort of)
> >> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 04:43:10 +0000
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I was just thinking about Monticello 2 and wondering what the
> >> strategy for creating revisions is.
> >>
> >> In darcs (and afaik all modern revision systems) the way it works
> >> is, I have a local repository and there can be any number of
> >> remote repositories.  So if we had one central repository called
> >> e.g. SqueakSource, after the initial push, my local repository is
> >> in sync with SqueakSource.  I can now make changes and publish
> >> them locally.  If I push these changes to the SqueakSource
> >> repository all the system has to do is see if the revision has not
> >> changed, and if it hasn't apply all my change sets to get back in
> >> sync and so on.
> >>
> >> It strikes me that Squeak can do this very easily.  We already
> >> have change sets that actually seem very good.  So we could do the
> >> same thing; when I do an initial publish to the central repository
> >> I am in sync.  Now the system creates a new change set for all
> >> changes I do from this point forward.  Later on when I try to sync
> >> again, if the version number has not changed the system need only
> >> apply the change sets I have made since the sync took place.  If
> >> the version number has changed, a simple conflict resolution can
> >> be done.
> >>
> >> The key point here is; it looks to me like the current Monticello
> >> is actually scanning the whole image to find out what has
> >> changed.  This is not necessary as all that information and more
> >> can be retrieved via the existing change set mechanism.  The only
> >> change would need to be that after you publish to a repository,
> >> Monticello needs to rename your "current" change set.  If it
> >> doesn't then the next time you publish it wont see any change sets
> >> that aren't present in the repository and decide no work was
> >> done.  Or it can look if the dates are different, but then it
> >> would have to scan the whole change set to see what is different.
> >> It saves processing by simply controlling the change set names.
> >>
> >> Another advantage is, we can easily have the darcs ability to only
> >> apply certain change sets.  Using the change set tools in the
> >> image I can create new change sets and push different changes into
> >> those, so that if I made a big change I can split it up into
> >> several different change sets.  Then I would have the ability to
> >> say e.g. only publish the first one and the last, but skip the
> >> middle.
> >>
> >> What do you all think?  Is this already what it's doing and I just
> >> didn't notice?  Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jason
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Download Messenger. Join the i'm Initiative. Help make a
> >> difference today. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?
> >> source=TAGHM_APR07
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Mortgage rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as
> > low as $771/month* https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?
> > product=100000035&url=%
> > 2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f8&disc=y&vers=689&s=40
> > 56&p=5117
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list