Now I got it. Thanks for the explanation. I just saved Monticello-bp.413.mcz in the inbox which puts flushObsoletePackageInfos into a cleanUp: method.

Cheers,
Bernhard

Am 14.12.2010 um 01:49 schrieb Levente Uzonyi:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Bernhard Pieber wrote:
>> There is a lot of cruft there which should be cleaned. Shouldn't the code for creating new trunk images for uploading to ftp.squeak.org be in the trunk image so that everyone can test and do it? Why not?
>> 
>> Where would you keep the code for preparing the release? In a different class or completely outside the trunk?
> In Squeak 4.1's release process ReleaseBuilder was not used. It was an improvement of Squeak 4.1 that you can evaluate
> 
> Smalltalk cleanUp: false
> or
> Smalltalk cleanUp
> 
> to empty caches and free up some space and evaluate
> 
> Smalltalk cleanUp: true
> 
> to prepare the image for release. So the code is in the image, but there's no central place for such code.
> 
> The ReleaseBuilder and ScriptLoader packages were only kept, because they may contain useful information to enhance the release process. We should review them, move the useful code to #cleanUp: methods, then get rid of these packages.
> 
>>>> May I suggest that we add the following there before?
>>>> MCWorkingCopy flushObsoletePackageInfos
>>>> 
>>>> Bert argued we should do it during the release. See http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-November/154868.html
>>> 
>>> The release is a bit different. In that case we will do
>>> Smalltalk cleanUp: true.
>> So you mean, this is not the release yet and therefore it is not done yet? Or should MCWorkingCopy flushObsoletePackageInfos not be done at all in your opinion?
> 
> Exactly, this will be a beta.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20101214/220a5101/attachment.htm