Hi Bert,

On Jan 28, 2015, at 11:54 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:

> On 28.01.2015, at 20:47, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 28, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> If you load Pkg2 first, then the code will migrate over to that package (making Pkg1 dirty).  Then loading Pkg1 would 'clean' it up.  doing this, there should be no loss of the state during loading.
>>> Yes, it does require loading them in a specific order.
>>> And, yes, if you moved Class C from Pkg1 to Pkg2, and Class D from Pkg2 to Pkg1 in the same commits, you need to figure out how to do simultaeous loading.  Or, as I think is more common, don't do this all at once, but rather do them as two steps with specif loading ordering.
>> 
>> 
>> Right.  And the way to manage that order dependency is with a configuration.  You commit the version of pkg2 with the class moved into it from pkg1.  You create and commit a configuration for that state (new pkg2, old pkg1).  Then you commit the new pkg2 with the class missing.
>> 
>> The configuration ensures that the new pkg2 is loaded b4 the new pkg1, and hence that the class is not lost.
>> 
>> Search the list for info in Monticello configs.  There's a menu pick to open the MCConfigurationBrowser which will help.
> 
> 
> +1 on MCConfigs.
> 
> And didn’t we make them correctly handle moves between packages last year? I think you just need a single config with new versions of both Pkg1 and Pkg2.


D'u remember how that works?  I'm curious.

> - Bert -


Eliot (phone)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20150128/07dab6d3/attachment.htm