[ANN] 3.9alpha-7000 out

Marcus Denker denker at iam.unibe.ch
Tue Feb 21 07:36:19 UTC 2006


On 21.02.2006, at 02:24, Juan Vuletich wrote:

> Hi Stef, Markus and everybody.
>
> In 3.9a-7000 the method Object >> adaptedToWorld: is missing. It  
> was in the Kernel package, and I could not have removed it. Please  
> open a simple change sorter and locate the latest change set. It is  
> MC25. I guess it has the latest stuff that was loaded from  
> Monticello packages. Then click on the Object class. It has a lot  
> of removed methods, #adaptedToWorld: being the first. Most likely  
> these methods were deleted by mistake.
>
> It seems a different version of  Kernel-md.98 was loaded. Or  
> something else and equally strange happened. I really can't tell.
>
> Please take a look, and consider rebuilding the 3.9a-7000 image  
> from 3.9a-6729, loading the stuff step by step, to find out why  
> those methods were deleted.
>
> ... went to check stuff...
>
> Ok, I found something else. In 3.9a-6728, this method is in the  
> Etoys package, not in kernel. This is quite weird, as the version  
> of Etoys in that image is also Etoys-md.6. However, if 3.9a-7000  
> was built from 3.9a-6728 and not 3.9a-6729, this explains the  
> deletions.
>
> So, I have some questions:
> 1) From which version was 3.9a-7000 built?

6729, I'm sure.

> 2) Why 3.9a-6728 and 3.9a-6729 have the same version number of the  
> Etoys package and one has the lost method and the other doesn't?

I think the problem is the following: when a method gets moved to  
another package, it is removed from the original one.
So when the methods got categorized *etoy, kernel was saved -->  
method gone.
And then, somehow, it was forgotten to save the eToy package, too -->  
method not in etoy, too.

I wonder why this happend, but I guess this was how.

This is complicated by the recategorizations that fileIns of  
changesets like to do... if you look at the history of the methods
in question, they kind of move back and forth between kernel and etoy  
very often.

> 3) Should I publish new versions of the packages, starting from  
> 3.9a-6728 and not 6729?

We would need an eToy package that has the method from Object... if  
we load that in 7001, everything
should work again.

> 4) How should we package maintainer know from which version start  
> to publish our packages?

The latest one, or even an earlier one... merging works normally  
quite nicely.

> 6) Finally, is there something else I can keep in mind to prevent  
> this kind of problems in the future?

Good question... surely: Better Packages that do not rely on naming  
conventions of method categories.

    Marcus



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list