[squeak-dev] Our process, some loose ideas regarding DS + MC

Juan Vuletich juan at jvuletich.org
Sat Aug 15 13:20:18 UTC 2009


Hi Göran!

Göran Krampe wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> ...
> MC is a very good tool and Keith/Matthew and others have turned it 
> into an even better tool AFAIK using SystemEditor as a base etc. It 
> does have its limitations though:
>
> 1. It tends to be more coarse granular than other tools. "commits" 
> tend to be more seldom, at least when I work in it. Probably due to 
> less stellar performance, might have been fixed.
>
> 2. It needs history to do its merge magic. Thus it doesn't play well 
> between forks. It plays very well within a package or within a group 
> of packages (a fork perhaps).
>
> 3. It is centered around packages defined by PackageInfo which more or 
> less means "a group of class categories + class extensions". It does 
> have MC configs now, and I haven't used them myself yet so I can't 
> really comment.
>
> The above three bits are different with Deltas.
>
> ...
>
> What would this achieve? Well, first of all we might be able to work 
> more completely in Squeak. :) We would above all be able to get "cross 
> fork pollination" using the Deltas that are being published alongside 
> the MC snapshots. Pharo could be "listening" to our bug fix stream for 
> example. And vice versa if Pharo decides to use this. And well, it 
> opens up lots of other possibilities I think.
>
> Anyway, would be interested in all feedback on this idea.
>
> regards, Göran

You're doing a great work with Deltas!

I agree that Deltas can fix the problems of both ChangeSets and MC. And 
that they might ease sharing code between forks. I want to support them 
in Cuis. And I hope they become a central piece of the update processes 
of Squeak and Pharo.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list