<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Colin Putney wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD+=c1h9-e0JZDTXg436vR+iP384uDLY9Pt_=jPDLGyC0TjCqQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Bert Freudenberg <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bert@freudenbergs.de"><bert@freudenbergs.de></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi all,
I ran the snippet below in a freshly downloaded trunk image. It found a couple of differences:
- Monticello is dirty because of the Mock category
- FlexibleVocabularies is dirty because its empty -Info category was removed
- Collections is dirty because there is an unpackaged method, WeakRegistry class>>migrateOldRegistries
These discrepancies should be corrected before the release, but does anybody have an idea why this happened?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Well, the first one is easy - running Monticello's test suite will
dirty the package. This is a hassle, but I haven't found a way to
prevent it that's not even more of a hassle. If you try to look at the
changes, it'll tell you there aren't any and mark the package clean.
Colin
</pre>
</blockquote>
This is a naive question - I'm just fishing to understand more about
the process...<br>
Would you not make a copy of trunk on the server to run the Monitecello
tests against, that is thrown away after the tests? <br>
For example, served up from <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://testsource.squeak.com/trunk">http://testsource.squeak.com/trunk</a>. <br>
Depending on your host operating system that could be a shallow
copy-on-write copy.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>