Hi!
Nicolas Cellier wrote:
2009/6/30 Göran Krampe goran@krampe.se:
It's doable with user crafted pre/post scripts without system validation... Is that the solution?
You mean in Deltas? Well, a Delta is meant to be able to do everything a Changeset can - so we need to support scripts (it is just another change class called "DSDoit"). Since the changes are ordered the "doits" can appear not only before or after but in the middle too :).
So... well, I presume "surgery" gets a tad simpler to do with Deltas since they simply record all the steps you perform. Thus, if you perform the steps you describe above - in sequence - then you have a DSDelta that will work. Slightly simpler than editing the Delta in order to add pre/post scripts etc.
This also means that we typically want to "prune" doits from Deltas, since they are normally not really wanted.
regards, Göran
Thanks, that's what I thought. I just wanted to point out that in some cases, special doIts are necessary. In theses cases, anti-delta generally won't work, and should better not be attempted.
I gully agree. :)
OK for me if tools cover 90%, atomic loading is just another example not covering 100%. Just think of providing enough hooks for the remaining 10% in the overall process. This kind of refactoring will likely happen to anyone touching Process, Graphics, user interaction like Sensor, Compiler and other Kernel beasts... That's not that rare. Ask Igor, Andreas, Eliot, Michael, Marcus, etc...
I agree. This is actually one of the first inspirations of Deltas - I wanted a tool that could do relatively nice merging/conflict detection etc *without* advanced history. We all like the concreteness of ChangeSets - but we could still have a modern implementation. :)
In turn this was also inspired by git - not git itself, but by the philosophy of "let the tool be less smart and more predictable", it will still cover 80-90% and will be enough. And you get fewer surprises.
regards, Göran