On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:27 PM, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:


>  It may be that Chris's technique for dumping the ancestry was less than
> perfect, but I'd say the real problem would likely be the ancestry code. Is
> there any plausible reason for a 'clean' image to have 9000
> version-doohickeys taking up a couple of MB?
>

Sure. It's the same reason we ship 40MB of sources/changes files, rather
than condensing sources frequently. This the revision history of the code
in the image, and the fact that it's already there with no effort makes it
easier to contribute to Squeak. That's helpful to newbies, and convenient
for experienced developers.

It wouldn't be that hard to come up with a scheme for shipping the version
history separately and loading it when needed, but nobody has found that
important.

Colin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140409/7a1d3095/attachment.htm