On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:19:49PM -0500, Chris Muller wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Apr 2011, Hannes Hirzel wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/16/11, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Interesting naming scheme; is that something we should "document" in
> >>> MCVersionName?
> >>
> >> Yes, please
> >
> > The question was not about if there should be some documentation added or
> > not, but whether if this naming convetion is/should be widely used. There's
> > at least one other existing naming scheme for branches
> > (http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3328 ), but IIRC we used to use something for
> > Gjallar too.
> > So IMHO if it's added to the class comment, then it should only be a
> > suggestion for future users.
> >
> Personally, I think we should leave the names alone and let the
> 'ancestry' determine the... ancestry.
> 
> Because otherwise the names could get "out of sync" with real
> ancestry; or some tools of the future would invariably rely on parsing
> names (yuck) to determine ancestry rather than the actual domain.
> 
> I, personally, don't think such naming is that great of a benefit;
> because whereever there are majorly-different branches of a package,
> they are worked on in different *images*; and they don't even have to
> be in separate MC repositories at all, even with FileBased; because
> you can see the real History straight from the domain object
> (MCVersionInfo) via the "History" button, which excludes all of the
> versions from the "other" branch.  So I don't see that complicated
> naming solves any real problem..

Actually it does solve a real problem. Between Eliot, Igor, and myself,
not one of us knew enough to use a good naming convention in the VMMaker
project. Thus we missed an opportunity to have the branches displayed
more clearly in the browser. So even if this is just a naming hack,
and even if it should only be taken as a suggestion for future users,
it still would be helpful to document it.

I agree with Hannes: "yes please!"

Dave