On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> On 20.01.2015, at 07:27, commits at source.squeak.org wrote:
>
> > Marcel Taeumel uploaded a new version of Collections to project The
> Trunk:
> > http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Collections-mt.602.mcz
> >
> > ==================== Summary ====================
> >
> > Name: Collections-mt.602
> > Author: mt
> > Time: 20 January 2015, 8:27:19.919 am
> > UUID: 96d6fefa-c902-7640-bd09-c17016199e81
> > Ancestors: Collections-ul.601
> >
> > Merged improvements for OrderedDictionary from inbox (ul.601).
> >
> > Fixed problem in (mt.600 version) #copyFrom:to: with memory allocation.
> Preferred this over ul.601 because it is faster (8 per second vs. 12 per
> second).
> >
> > d := OrderedDictionary new.
> > 1 to: 1000000 do: [:ea | d at: ea put: nil].
> > [d copyFrom: 250000 to: 750000] bench.
> >
> > =============== Diff against Collections-mt.600 ===============
> >
>
> Process question.
> Marcel just merged the changes from an inbox commit.
> Should Collections-ul.601 be
> a) moved to Trunk (for ancestry) or
> b) moved to the treated inbox or
> c) be delete or
> d) be left alone?
>
>
The MC model is a useful historical model only when backed by a repository
with all ancestral versions.

So, the answer is (a).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20150120/8b0083fb/attachment.htm