Important for 3.9 submissions and fixes

Avi Bryant avi.bryant at gmail.com
Sat Sep 10 20:08:17 UTC 2005


On Sep 10, 2005, at 12:39 PM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

>
>
> Avi Bryant wrote:
>
>> Actually, I think either way would work, because IIRC Monticello   
>> doesn't actually use dependencies as a way to specify ordering,   
>> simply as a way to figure out which versions of which packages to   
>> load together.  It then dumps all of the methods and classes into  
>> a  big pool and sorts out the load order itself.  As long as you  
>> make  sure to load M.2 and E.2 at the same time, you should be fine.
>>
> I was talking about this aspect, not about internal ordering of  
> loads. We want to make it impossible to load M.2 without loading E. 
> 2, and AFAIU, a dependency M.2->E.2 achieves that. OTOH, a  
> dependency E.2->M.2 would allow me to load M.2 alone, which would  
> remove functionality. Am I right?
>
> If so, that allows contributors to distribute their new versions in  
> a form that specifies precisely how they need to be loaded, and  
> then a maintainer doesn't have to figure it out, and we don't have  
> to go back to change sets.

Ok, yes, that makes sense.

Although I wonder if it would be more intention revealing to create a  
new, empty package named something like MorphicEtoysReorganization,  
have it depend on both Morphic and Etoys, and commit that.  That way  
you wouldn't have to clear the dependency later.  But it would still  
be possible to load M.2 alone, so you'd need some way to document  
that MER was the "real", top-level submission.

Avi



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list