+1, but the configuration has to be updated first to load the correct 
versions.

Levente

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, H. Hirzel wrote:

> Proposal
>
> Take the result of this discussion
>
>    Installer ensureRecentMetacello.
>    Metacello new
>                configuration: 'RefactoringTools';
>                load.
>
>
> and put it into the Squeak help file subject 'Extending the system'
> thus replacing the Omnibrowser script.
>
> --Hannes
>
>
>
> On 5/11/18, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10.05.2018, at 18:41, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ... and... how to get Metacello please?
>>>
>>
>> Installer ensureRecentMetacello
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>>> On 10.05.2018, at 09:19, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello
>>>>>
>>>>> Following up on this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do I get the latest version of the RefactoringTools updated for
>>>>> the most recent trunk version?
>>>>>
>>>>> There are some SqueakMap entries but they are outdated.
>>>>>
>>>>> This
>>>>>
>>>>>    http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/831
>>>>>
>>>>> seems to give recent information as well.
>>>>
>>>> This is the most recent info.
>>>>
>>>> I short, if you have Metacello,
>>>>
>>>>        Metacello new
>>>>                configuration: 'RefactoringTools';
>>>>                load.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's about it.
>>>> Marcel and Me will keep the Config up to date.
>>>> We have not made any SqueakMap entries.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>>        -Tobias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --Hannes
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/3/17, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jacob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Jakob Reschke
>>>>>> <forums.jakob at resfarm.de>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 02.11.2017 7:11 nachm. schrieb "Eliot Miranda"
>>>>>>> <eliot.miranda at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel at hpi.de>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Next step would be to build a preview tool that supports add/remove
>>>>>>>> steps
>>>>>>>> of a refactoring. For example, a "rename message" might tackle too
>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>> methods. That is, there is no scoping at the moment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK.  We likely definitely want to scope by package(s), right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless you wanted to say "packages, not classes or categories" I do
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> think so. Mostly because projects/software is often divided into -Core
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> -Tests packages. Or think of -Examples, -Plugins, -Extensions... So I
>>>>>>> fear
>>>>>>> explicit input of the scope (a set of packages) will be required.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think offering two scopes is adequate:
>>>>>> a) the entire system
>>>>>> b) classes and extension methods whose package name matches either a
>>>>>> prefix
>>>>>> or a pattern
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Using package dependencies (like in ENVY) would be nice, but they are
>>>>>>> unmaintained in Monticello (often only supplied with Metacello).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, and my Environments bell is ringing again... ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember that one can always generate more narrowly scoped refactoring
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> 1. performing the refactoring on some larger scope (e.g. the entire
>>>>>> system)
>>>>>> 2. quitting the system
>>>>>> 3. using the changes crash recovery tool to select the desired
>>>>>> refactorings
>>>>>> or by using method versions to revert any unwanted
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So having a simple generally useful scope such as package or package
>>>>>> prefix
>>>>>> would work for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _,,,^..^,,,_
>>>>>> best, Eliot
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>