On 03.07.2009, at 23:44, Ken Causey wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 23:27 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> On 03.07.2009, at 23:12, Ken Causey wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 23:00 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>>> On 03.07.2009, at 22:53, Ken Causey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> oops I mean update 7161
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ftp.squeak.org/updates/7161ObjectFlagFix-M6793-edc.cs
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:43 -0500, Ken Causey wrote:
>>>>>> I've started checking the current trunk against all the changes
>>>>>> applied
>>>>>> in the update stream since 7159.  One of the methods in 7160 is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> !PartsBin methodsFor: '*BabySRE-connectors-initialization' stamp:
>>>>>> 'edc
>>>>>> 12/4/2007 16:01'!
>>>>>> listDirection: aListDirection quadList: quadList buttonClass:
>>>>>> buttonClass
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and it is missing in trunk.  There are no senders.  Was its  
>>>>>> removal
>>>>>> intentional?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's in the BabySRE package in trunk - but obviously it does not
>>>> belong there but is miscategorized.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Bert -
>>>
>>> Ah, another good catch.  This is clearly useless as a package.  I
>>> assume
>>> the correction action is to delete the package.  But then is it
>>> referenced elsewhere like some mcm or the like?  Obviously one of my
>>> goals with all these questions is to understand policy.
>>
>> It was not loaded by the mcm (that's why it is not underlined and
>> sorted to the bottom if you look at the repo).
>
> OK, frankly I've forgotten what underlining means here.  MC could  
> still
> use some documentation, or some balloon messages or something.
>
>> I assume Andreas took 3.10.2 and simply committed any package in it  
>> to
>> trunk - including faulty ones like this.
>>
>> The question is if this is a new method that simply could be removed,
>> or if it existed before and got moved out of its rightful package  
>> into
>> BabySRE. I believe the latter, since the method existed before
>> (timestamp 'nk 9/1/2004').
>>
>> - Bert -
>
> Yes.  It doesn't appear that there are any senders of this message in
> the image any longer.  Are you concerned that some external package
> relies on its existence?

No, I was simply sharing my findings for someone else to make sense of  
it :)

- Bert -