Monticello is wonderful for one-click loading, but one-click saving still eludes me.
I just want to work on code anywhere in the system and then save my root package to a repository and feel confident that it and the subpackages will be recreated in the loading image just as they exist in my saving image.
Does Monticello purport to meet this requirement or not?
If not, fine, end of story. I'll shut-up about it and just be sure to verify my out-going dependency links every time I save.
If so, am I the only one experiencing this? Perhaps I am overusing dependencies; I counted and have dependencies that run *eight* levels deep. Is this insane? Is there anything I can do to assist the maintainers in reproducing this?
- Chris
Chris Muller wrote:
Monticello is wonderful for one-click loading, but one-click saving still eludes me.
I just want to work on code anywhere in the system and then save my root package to a repository and feel confident that it and the subpackages will be recreated in the loading image just as they exist in my saving image.
Does Monticello purport to meet this requirement or not?
It depends on what you mean by "anywhere in the system."
If you mean anywhere in the packages that you're managing with Monticello, then yes, saving your root package will do everything necessary to recreate the state of your dependent packages when you load that version of the root again. If it doesn't, it's a bug. I rely on this pretty heavily when developing OB, and haven't had any problems.
If "anywhere in the system" could include any code in the image, then no, Monticello doesn't support the requirement.
If so, am I the only one experiencing this? Perhaps I am overusing dependencies; I counted and have dependencies that run *eight* levels deep. Is this insane? Is there anything I can do to assist the maintainers in reproducing this?
What are you experiencing? I interpret what you've said above to mean that you're not confident that dependencies behave the way you expect. Have you encountered behavior that you didn't expect?
8 levels is a bit more than I have in OB, but it's not at all unreasonable. With that big a tree you might want to check that you haven't missed a dependency somewhere, but otherwise it ought to be fine.
Colin
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:47:38 -0500, Colin Putney cputney@wiresong.ca wrote:
If so, am I the only one experiencing this? Perhaps I am overusing dependencies; I counted and have dependencies that run *eight* levels deep. Is this insane? Is there anything I can do to assist the maintainers in reproducing this?
What are you experiencing? I interpret what you've said above to mean that you're not confident that dependencies behave the way you expect. Have you encountered behavior that you didn't expect?
8 levels is a bit more than I have in OB, but it's not at all unreasonable. With that big a tree you might want to check that you haven't missed a dependency somewhere, but otherwise it ought to be fine.
Cees reported some similar issues, so I don't think it's just Chris. Actually, I was rather hoping Cees was going to fix them... ;)
I tend to use dependencies one or two levels deep, which does seem to work.
Avi
Avi Bryant wrote:
Cees reported some similar issues, so I don't think it's just Chris. Actually, I was rather hoping Cees was going to fix them... ;)
I tend to use dependencies one or two levels deep, which does seem to work.
Me too. It's certainly possible there's a bug.
If Chris or Cees can describe what they're encountering we can try to come up with a test case that reproduces it. I guess the tricky bit for them is that if it really is an issue in saving dependencies, they're not likely to notice the problem until days or weeks after it occurs.
Colin
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:04:07 -0500, Colin Putney cputney@wiresong.ca wrote:
If Chris or Cees can describe what they're encountering we can try to come up with a test case that reproduces it. I guess the tricky bit for them is that if it really is an issue in saving dependencies, they're not likely to notice the problem until days or weeks after it occurs.
I think one thing that doesn't work is when only versions change:
A |B |C
you load a new version of C (say it's an external package, maybe from SqueakMap), and later on save A. B should be saved as well because its prerequisites changed, and I don't think that happens at the moment.
The issue discussed here:
A |B |C ... ... |X
You modify X and save A. A...W should all be saved as well - should work for any arbitrary number of intermediate packages. Because of the issues I had when starting up the DGV project with this, I flattened the tree so I cannot tell you whether this issue is still there.
(oh, and Copy should probably update the target repository for all prerequisites, recursively, as well. I don't think it does that at the moment)
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 00:59:03 +0200, Avi Bryant avi.bryant@gmail.com wrote:
Cees reported some similar issues, so I don't think it's just Chris. Actually, I was rather hoping Cees was going to fix them... ;)
Didn't we fix that when I was in Utrecht? I was hoping you'd commit this... ;)
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org