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 There are some SqueakMap entries but they are outdated.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
>> 
>