On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't know whether its possible to generate a .sources file that
> >> would contain full history,
> >
> >
> > _yes it is_.  The only issue in preserving history is in pruning
> branches.
> > There is no point preserving versions that are not ancestors of current
> > versions.  And that's an easy process.  I have code that does this and
> > Camillo just rewrote source condensing for Pharo and claims its much more
> > comprehensible, so taking his code and getting it to preserve history
> while
> > pruning could be another route.
>
> How does your or Camillo's code work?  How could it possibly know what
> version of, say, Dictionary>>#at:put: was released to official Squeak
> 2.8?  Are you parsing into some cold 2.8 image file from a 4.5 image?
>

The code merely collects all available versions of each method, prunes the
versions which have no descendents and writes all these methods to the
sources file.  [I don't know how Camillo;s code works].  So this won't
magically retrieve older versions, but it *will* preserve the history we
have since the writing of the 4.1 sources file.


> Even if you could identify all the CM's you still don't have the
> source for them.  You'd have to then go looking into the cold image
> file, identify which .sources file its using, find the source-pointer
> for that method, THEN go into that sources file to extract it..
>

That's not what it does.  What it does is condense preserving available
history.  What we have no is condense, losing all available history.  As we
accumulate more history so preserving extant history becomes more and more
valuable, no?

I just don't believe you or Camillo are attempting something this
> crazy -- hell just setting up all the images and sources would be a
> major pain.  But I see no other way to accomplish what Hannes was
> referring to as "full history".  Tell me how it works, show me the
> code and how to use it, else I call bull-shit.  ;)
>

But that's also quite possible and not that hard either.  A CHange List is
a tool which can accomplish most of this.  It is a few days work.  But as I
say, we can much more easily condense while preserving extant history.  Am
I clearer now?
-- 
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140318/92445f3b/attachment.htm