Maybe this is silly question for Avi what sure have strong reasons. But I unhappy about losing names of packages having Monticello as official tool in image. Before 3.7 full, I can load .mcz using SqueakMap or from files stored on my disk using FileList. Always I could have package name what I could easily locate using normal Change Browser. Now , instead of having CrazyThing.3 , I have MC9 and is more difficult when you work a while remember or locating where CrazyThing.3 are.
Edgar
On Aug 31, 2004, at 11:35 AM, Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
Maybe this is silly question for Avi what sure have strong reasons. But I unhappy about losing names of packages having Monticello as official tool in image. Before 3.7 full, I can load .mcz using SqueakMap or from files stored on my disk using FileList. Always I could have package name what I could easily locate using normal Change Browser. Now , instead of having CrazyThing.3 , I have MC9 and is more difficult when you work a while remember or locating where CrazyThing.3 are.
There's no "strong reason" for this, it's just that our assumption was that for packages managed with Monticello, there was no reason to look at the individual changesets (personally, I find that I rarely if ever open a Change Browser at all). So although we needed to pick some name for the changesets it creates, it didn't seem to matter much what it was.
However, clearly some other people have work habits that do involve combining Monticello with the Change Browser, and for them better names would be preferable. As it happens, I have a patch from Ned that fixes exactly this issue, and which will be included in a minor update to Monticello I'll release later today. So your timing on this question is pretty good.
I would be curious to know, however, what it is you're looking at CrazyThing.3 to find out, and whether it's something that could be supported directly through the Monticello UI.
Avi
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 3:36 am, Avi Bryant wrote:
However, clearly some other people have work habits that do involve combining Monticello with the Change Browser, and for them better names would be preferable. As it happens, I have a patch from Ned that fixes exactly this issue, and which will be included in a minor update to Monticello I'll release later today. So your timing on this question is pretty good.
Actually, I have a newer fix for this (and many other bugs!) that I'll send today.
On 31/08/04 07:36, "Avi Bryant" avi@beta4.com wrote:
There's no "strong reason" for this, it's just that our assumption was that for packages managed with Monticello, there was no reason to look at the individual changesets (personally, I find that I rarely if ever open a Change Browser at all). So although we needed to pick some name for the changesets it creates, it didn't seem to matter much what it was.
However, clearly some other people have work habits that do involve combining Monticello with the Change Browser, and for them better names would be preferable. As it happens, I have a patch from Ned that fixes exactly this issue, and which will be included in a minor update to Monticello I'll release later today. So your timing on this question is pretty good.
I would be curious to know, however, what it is you're looking at CrazyThing.3 to find out, and whether it's something that could be supported directly through the Monticello UI.
Avi
Avi:
Monticello is a excellent tool for pros. It's me what need learn more about your tool (and others pro tools). The reason is what sometimes I combined classes defined in different changes, for having it in others.
What about your idea of different images by different authors ? I wish know how feels one working 3.7 fullAvi,image
So, continue good work and have my congratulations for it.
Edgar
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org