On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 1:31 PM Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:45 PM Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Monticello repositories don't support duplicate names
>
>
> ... but only because we choose to give way more meaning to the version
> name than originally intended.
>
> E.g.,  MCDictionaryRepository, which is pretty much untouched since Avi's
> implementation in 2003, happily stores two versions with the same name.
>
> That's because #versionWithInfo: is the basic interface to a repository.
> In fact, in an MCRepositoryGroup it should be fine to have have different
> versions with the same name in two repositories, since it uses the same
> interface. If this isn't supported anymore, that's a bug.
>
> The only significant identifier of a MCVersion is its MCVersionInfo, and
> that is identified by its ID, not its version name (cf.  MCVersionInfo>=).
>
> , but it also
>> can't easily check against that so it has to be up to the committer
>> (although I suppose it could try!).
>>
>> > Is there a morphic tool to visualize the ancestry graph?
>>
>> No.  We should work toward eliminating duplicate names rather than
>> supporting them.
>>
>
> We should try to avoid them (and we are trying - we put that commit
> warning about same or newer names in a long time ago) but MC being a
> distributed system there is no way to avoid this completely, so we should
> support it properly, as originally designed.
>
> - Bert -
>

+1

_,,,^..^,,,_
best, Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20190218/6be70bd4/attachment.html>