[V3dot10] RE: About Monticello andhttp://bugs.impara.de/squeak/view.php?id=5217

[Bert Freudenberg]

It solves the problem of moving a definition from one package to  
another. Depending on the load order, those definitions would simply  
disappear before, we had several lost methods because of this.

- Bert -

On Mar 11, 2007, at 3:00 , Ron Teitelbaum wrote:

> Hi Bert,
>
> Thanks for the clarification.  What change did you make that allows  
> packages
> to be loaded out of order?  I was wrong but I though the problem  
> was that
> initialize methods were being run because MC saw the methods as  
> changed from
> different repositories.  What you are saying makes sense but why is  
> MCC
> loading packages in a different order, and what problem does it solve?
>
> Ron
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: v3dot10-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:v3dot10-
>> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Bert Freudenberg
>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:20 PM
>> To: Discussion about development of Squeak 3.10
>> Subject: Re: [V3dot10] RE: About Monticello
>> andhttp://bugs.impara.de/squeak/view.php?id=5217
>>
>> Hi Ron,
>>
>> actually you seem to confuse *updating* a config with *installing*  
>> it.
>>
>> The #initialize problem Andreas and Philippe talked about occurs when
>> installing, not when updating. Because the packages are not installed
>> in the same order as listed in the configuration, their classes'
>> #initialize methods get called in an unpredictable order. That means
>> some configs are not loadable, for example, if the first package in
>> it adds a new compiler that has to be initialized before even parsing
>> the next package.
>>
>> What you are proposing makes sense, but is a totally different  
>> problem.
>>
>> - Bert -
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2007, at 1:59 , Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
>>
>>> I'm on the list already.  It's not an easy question since both
>>> methods are
>>> useful.  I suppose the best solution is to change the button so
>>> that it does
>>> all three methods.
>>>
>>> 1) Update from Image
>>> 2) Get Largest Version Number From Reposistories
>>> 3) Update From Repositories in order
>>>
>>> Or something like that.
>>>
>>> Otherwise we need to just pick which one is the better.
>>>
>>> The arguments are good on both sides.  Either we place greater
>>> emphasis on
>>> version numbers, or we prefer one repository over another.
>>> Preferring one
>>> repository over another prevents the code from initialize when you
>>> are not
>>> expecting it.  Preferring higher version numbers allows you to fork
>>> a local
>>> path for bug fixing temporarily and then move back to the main
>>> development
>>> repository when the bug in integrated back in.
>>>
>>> I suggest we put all three methods in, maybe with better names, so
>>> that we
>>> can get the best of both worlds, as long as everyone agrees that
>>> it's not
>>> too complicated.
>>>
>>> Ron Teitelbaum
>>>
>>>> From: Edgar J. De Cleene
>>>>
>>>> Ron:
>>>>
>>>> I following some of How-to Monticello Configuration thread and this
>>>> morning
>>>> in "Discussion about development of Squeak 3.10"
>>>> <v3dot10 at lists.squeakfoundation.org> some drives me to your report
>>>>
>>>> http://bugs.impara.de/squeak/view.php?id=5217
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I need the best Monticello, as was decided what 3.10 should do all
>>>> what
>>>> possible using Monticello.
>>>>
>>>> But seems several different opinions of what the better / right
>>>> version
>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>> If you could find some time to join into the list...
>>>>
>>>> Edgar