[squeak-dev] Procedure for condensing sources
leves at elte.hu
Sun Feb 20 02:04:49 UTC 2011
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, Eliot Miranda wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Well, will there be a very much code removed? I'm hard-pressed to
>>>> imagine we would save even 1MB of disk-space. But yet at the cost of
>>>> losing a continuity-of-record about Squeak; e.g., "what happened
>>>> between 4.2 and 4.3". Each release should be presented in terms of
>>>> its delta to the prior release. Isn't that a bad deal or am I missing
>>> I'm not sure about what your goal is with that delta. Condensing the
>>> is not bad, but IMHO it's late. It can be done now, but it's better
>>> releasing the image (it's not specific to 4.3).
>> My goal is elegance, continuity, and useful information (deltas).
> Elegance pushes for an empty or absent changes file. Continuity and useful
> information push for a sources file that contains older versions. I have
> code that condenses the changes while eliminating intermediate versions that
> are not ancestors of the current version. See directAncestryOfVersions: in
> the attached changes. How about we adapt this code to function for
> generating a new sources file, and generate a SqueakV4.2.sources?
Andreas added SmalltalkImage >> #appendChangesTo: during the developement
of 4.1 which can create a new sources file (or modify the existing one),
which will contain the contents of the original sources file + the latest
version of all changes from the changes file. The contents of the changes
file will be empty.
> VisualWorks has always generated a new sources file for every release so
> that the changes file is absent (the empty file serves no purpose). But I
> also agree that old versions are great to have. These two are not
>> It's elegant, for Squeak 4.2, to consist of: a V41 sources file +
>> image + changes file. This is the traditional essence of Smalltalk
>> systems; sources+changes, and one which provides a "continuity" from
>> one released image to the next.
>> If we compress right before each release (instead of right after),
>> then wouldn't we just be deploying a "snapshot" of the state of the
>> system as of a particular moment in time. There would be no
>> "connection" to the prior release at all in terms of what maturities
>> the system made. And only because we wanted to save a couple MB of
>> disk space?
>> I guess I should ask you to clarify your question you posed to me too;
>> what is your goal / reasoning. You said, "it's late" and it's "better
>> before releasing the image". May I ask why?
>> I don't think disk-space is a good answer because someone interested
>> in a, as-small-as-possible is not going to use a stock Squeak release
>> anyway; they're going to have to do a unloading / condensing /
>> compression steps.
More information about the Squeak-dev