Publishing on Monticello

Hernan Tylim htylim at yahoo.com.ar
Tue Sep 20 02:20:05 UTC 2005


My 2 cents:

The user's intention is always the loading of a package so the buttons 
should be labeled "Load something".  Make it "Load and Integrate" vs 
"Load and Replace" if you wish, but the important word here is Load 
which is what the end-user's  intention direct..

Personally. I would use only one button and I would make it to execute a 
Load, unless it is detected that it will overwrite something on the 
image. In this latter case I would popup a dialog and ask the user if it 
wants to discard what is on the image or merge it.

Regards,
Hernán

Colin Putney wrote:

>
> On Sep 18, 2005, at 8:00 PM, Avi Bryant wrote:
>
>> Thinking about this slightly more: it's not really about the  
>> modified flag, because the local changes may have been saved/ 
>> committed somewhere already.  The deciding factor is not just  
>> whether the package is currently dirty, but whether the working  copy 
>> is an unmodified ancestor of the version you're updating to.   This 
>> makes it an even harder choice for the users to make unaided.
>
>
> I think it's simpler than that. The question is whether you care  
> about what's currently in you image. I guess the problem with "load"  
> and "merge" is that they really describe the lower-level operation  
> we're performing in Monticello. On a UI - level, "replace" sounds  
> good... along with "integrate?"
>
> replace - recreate this other version exactly as it was saved
> integrate - make the image "aware" of the development effort that  
> went into this version
>
> Depending on the dirty state of the working copy, it's ancestry and  
> the ancestry of the other version, both these operations might end up  
> being loads, merges or no-ops, and might leave the working copy clean  
> or dirty.
>
> Colin
>
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list