Another problem with the current fileout format

PhiHo Hoang phiho.hoang at rogers.com
Tue Jul 1 04:36:42 UTC 2003



Hi Guys,

> It sounds like you and the other "Berne guys" are running into 
> difficulties with concurrent development. That's exactly the problem 
> that Monticello and CVS are meant to solve. Avi, Julian, Andrew and I 
> (the "Vancouver guys," I guess) have been using them for several months 
> now - they work great. You really ought to take the time to try them 
> out.


    It's quite a warm feeling to see the collaboration and co-operation between
    Squeak Guys. 

    Please keep up with the great work of Monticello, Vancouver guys.
    
    Happy Kanata day.
    

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.

    P.S: Ka-na-ta: originally an Iroquoian word for a community or group of huts. 

             http://www.kidsfromkanata.org/~KFK/files/KANATA%20Name.html 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Colin Putney" <cputney at wiresong.ca>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: Another problem with the current fileout format


> 
> On Sunday, June 29, 2003, at 02:18  AM, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> 
> > Our problem was that we had 3.5 complaint changeset and that we wanted 
> > to load them in 3.6alpha in which class had
> > been removed in parallel. So alex built a splitter that given a set of 
> > removals and a changeset generates a new changeset and a set of 
> > changesets for each of the removals. So perfect.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > This kind of explicit representation would work well for class 
> > definition, Pool Definition, Class initialization too this means that 
> > we could load code without executing it and this would support all 
> > kinds of cool tools. Note that this was one of the idea behind the 
> > file format of Ginsu.
> 
> This is exactly the reason we wrote Monticello.
> 
> Monticello uses a declarative representation of Smalltalk code, along 
> the same lines as the ANSI spec or Ginsu. When loading a package, it 
> creates a model of  the package, analyzes it in relation to the image, 
> produces a patch, and applies the patch to the image.
> 
> If it finds any unmet dependencies during the analysis, it will show 
> you what parts of the package it won't be able to compile, and gives 
> you the option to continue on with the whatever *can* be compiled or 
> quit and leave your image unchanged. I suspect that this would have 
> solved the problem you mentioned.
> 
> It sounds like you and the other "Berne guys" are running into 
> difficulties with concurrent development. That's exactly the problem 
> that Monticello and CVS are meant to solve. Avi, Julian, Andrew and I 
> (the "Vancouver guys," I guess) have been using them for several months 
> now - they work great. You really ought to take the time to try them 
> out.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Colin
> 
>



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list