RV: [V3dot10] Do in a workspace and say if could build

[Bert Freudenberg]

There are certainly ways to fix this. So don't despair ;)

Simplest is to delete the wrong 23, 25 and 27 in the repo, and  
replace it with good ones. Like, bf.23 and bf.24 from http:// 
source.squeakfoundation.org/inbox

Or just load bf.24 and remove the bad 23, 25, and 27 later.

I made these by first backporting edc.23 to md.22 (but removing any  
trace of doing so) and saving as bf.23, and then merging edc.25  
(again removing that info) before saving as bf.24. This is to get a  
"clean" history for the release image, it should have worked fine  
without that ancestor trickery, but the bad ancestry contained refs  
to the missing versions.

I did all that in a 7105 image, the latest I found at
	http://ftp.squeak.org/current_development/

Cheers,

- Bert -

On Jun 19, 2007, at 10:54 , Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:

>
>
>
> El 6/18/07 10:26 PM, "Chris Muller" <asqueaker at gmail.com> escribió:
>
>> This situation was painful for me the first time it happened.  The
>> Etoys-edc.23-with-a-different-UUID situation occurs when "edc" works
>> off of version 22 twice and saves two packages each with the same  
>> name
>> (23).
> "edc" is me , and I do the mistake, sorry
>
>> I wish Monticello would handle this better, but at least if one pays
>> attention, you can rename the file when you save the second "23" to
>> put extra characters in the filename to ensure it is unique from the
>> other 23.  Then they can co-exist in the same repository and be  
>> easily
>> merged.
>
> But Monticello don trust names, two names with different UUID are  
> different
> objects.
>
> Could Monticello be tricked to think no matter the .mcz was named  
> (or what
> UUID) to work?
>
> Yes, was the patch sended , but people seems unconfortable with it.
>
> This is why I try to have a new repo with right files.
> Still working...
>
> Edgar