On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:04:57AM -0800, Andreas Raab wrote:
> David T. Lewis wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 08:56:01PM -0800, Andreas Raab wrote:
> >>
> >>I think we should nuke enterForEmergencyRecovery and those parts in 
> >>Project that deal with isolated changes. This is one of the projects 
> >>that never got to a conclusion and there is no point in keeping all 
> >>these hooks for stuff that is unused. If you want to keep the interface, 
> >>just raise an error if you ever see a revert == true or so.
> >
> >Oh, good, that explains it. I was rather nervous about modifying a method
> >when I did not even know what it was being used for.
> 
> It was used in an experimental project that tried to isolate changes 
> done in a project by un-applying them when you would enter another 
> project. Unfortunately, the approach taken (making copies of the methods 
> and applying/unapplying them when entering leaving projects) was fraught 
> with perils and didn't work very well in practice. So nuke it ;-)

I marked #enterForEmergencyRecovery with a "self flag: #toRemove" and
explanatory comment. There are two senders of #enterForEmergencyRecovery
and I don't understand the implications, so I won't nuke it just yet.

Thanks,
Dave