On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:

>
> On 18.07.2014, at 02:14, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 17.07.2014, at 21:47, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Tobias,
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 17.07.2014, at 02:53, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Your patch should work either way.  At the level where a repository
> retrieves Collections-ul.573 for you, it doesn't care whether its a .mcd or
> .mcz; the MCVersion object you get with its embedded Snapshot to patch,
> will have everything as if it were loaded from a mcz..
> >>
> >> Are you sure?]\
> >>
> >> Chris is right.  Loading the version appears to construct the full
> package from the patch correctly.  magic ;-)
> >
> >
> > Yep. MCDiffyVersions should behave exactly the same as regular
> MCVersions. They're just stored in multiple files, not one.
>
> OK, thanks :)
> I was concerned as I thought Eliot’s patching acted directly
> on the snapshot.bin. Silly me.
>

That would be hairy :-). Instead it is essentially a package commit.  A
snapshot is created, modified and then committed.  So it gets its own
distinct UUID, version number and time stamp.  And of course now it gets a
branched package name.  So these packages can safely coexist with their
originals on trunk.  The only bug right now is that new methods end up
uncategorized and that causes a few tests to fail.  Frank's CI server may
encourage me to fix this soon ;-).
-- 
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140718/728ab2cd/attachment-0001.htm