[squeak-dev] preserving heritage (was: filtered menu in 3.11)
eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Thu Feb 4 19:11:13 UTC 2010
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Ken Causey <ken at kencausey.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 20:38 -0600, Chris Muller wrote:
> > Squeak has been such a great journey, and its own historical path is
> > somewhat captured in the timestamp / author-stamp information of the
> > individual methods.
> > I think it is worthwhile to revert methods properly; meaning to truly
> > revert them not just to the prior code, but to the prior accounting
> > record associated with that.
> > With Monticello, it is relatively easy to retrieve the original method
> > from the prior version. Proper reversion is one reason for keeping
> > around all the old versions of code.
> > More importantly, however, I think we should take care to revert
> > methods properly so that the original history and heritage of the
> > object-model that is the latest and greatest Squeak image, be
> > preserved as much as possible.
> > I do it even with just my own code, even when I'm the same initials,
> > because it is still worth it to me to know, _when_ was that method
> > written. How long has that method been sitting there, unchanged.
> > Again, I think it's worth it, and I hope others will consider the
> > value of adopting this practice as well.
> > Thank you,
> > Chris
> I wonder if there is some reasonable change to the tools that could be
> made to make this more natural and therefore require less forethought.
> I share your goal but often forget.
Monticello could be made to ask and/or warn if one should automatically
revert unchanged methods if the previous version is in the package cache.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev