On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 23:27 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 03.07.2009, at 23:12, Ken Causey wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 23:00 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> >> On 03.07.2009, at 22:53, Ken Causey wrote:
> >>
> >>> oops I mean update 7161
> >>>
> >>> http://ftp.squeak.org/updates/7161ObjectFlagFix-M6793-edc.cs
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:43 -0500, Ken Causey wrote:
> >>>> I've started checking the current trunk against all the changes
> >>>> applied
> >>>> in the update stream since 7159.  One of the methods in 7160 is
> >>>>
> >>>> !PartsBin methodsFor: '*BabySRE-connectors-initialization' stamp:
> >>>> 'edc
> >>>> 12/4/2007 16:01'!
> >>>> listDirection: aListDirection quadList: quadList buttonClass:
> >>>> buttonClass
> >>>>
> >>>> and it is missing in trunk.  There are no senders.  Was its removal
> >>>> intentional?
> >>>>
> >>>> Ken
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's in the BabySRE package in trunk - but obviously it does not
> >> belong there but is miscategorized.
> >>
> >>
> >> - Bert -
> >
> > Ah, another good catch.  This is clearly useless as a package.  I  
> > assume
> > the correction action is to delete the package.  But then is it
> > referenced elsewhere like some mcm or the like?  Obviously one of my
> > goals with all these questions is to understand policy.
> 
> It was not loaded by the mcm (that's why it is not underlined and  
> sorted to the bottom if you look at the repo).

OK, frankly I've forgotten what underlining means here.  MC could still
use some documentation, or some balloon messages or something.

> I assume Andreas took 3.10.2 and simply committed any package in it to  
> trunk - including faulty ones like this.
> 
> The question is if this is a new method that simply could be removed,  
> or if it existed before and got moved out of its rightful package into  
> BabySRE. I believe the latter, since the method existed before  
> (timestamp 'nk 9/1/2004').
> 
> - Bert -

Yes.  It doesn't appear that there are any senders of this message in
the image any longer.  Are you concerned that some external package
relies on its existence?  With that in mind I have brought up the
subject of a deprecation policy in a separate email.

Ken 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20090703/53ab399b/attachment.pgp