[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
|