Important for 3.9 submissions and fixes

stéphane ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Sat Sep 10 20:14:56 UTC 2005


On 10 sept. 05, at 21:39, 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?

Daniel hardcoding dependency at version level for the loading can be  
a pain after because you can arrive to situation where you need
to load a different version of component but you cannot unload it to  
load its new version.

> 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.

I think that having Configuration like the
MCVersionLoader new
    addVersion: ...;
    addVersion: ...;
    addVersion: ...;
    load

is a good solution since we can define a new one without having to  
load in the image a component.
We can just change the script. I'm sure that I'm not clear but we are  
bitten by the version prerequisite syndrome in
VW for moose. And now I'm dead.

>> As Marcus mentioned earlier, our current configurations system   
>> *doesn't* do this - it's trying to enforce a particular order, and  
>> so  loads every package individually.  All in all, I think this is  
>> a  mistake.  In the rare cases where Monticello can't get the  
>> order  right on its own, we can post sequential configurations to  
>> the update  stream to force its hand.  Otherwise, I think we  
>> should be doing it  as a bulk load.
>>
> Sounds right to me.
>
> Daniel
>
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list