[squeak-dev] preserving heritage (was: filtered menu in 3.11)

Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com
Fri Feb 5 11:14:55 UTC 2010


2010/2/5 Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com>:
> Ohh, that sounds pretty good.
>
> Until then, though, thankfully Monticello at least informs with the
> comment, "source same but revision changed" in the "Patch Browser" (I
> assume everyone reviews their changes like me before saving!  :)  ).
> Those methods can be right-clicked, and then select "revert".  MC will
> load the prior version with the old accounting info.
>

Doesn't a change of protocol triggers these  "source same but revision
changed" ?
Change of protocol perserve the author/timeStamp meta info.

Nicolas

> For reverting to methods prior to the last version:
>
>  - note timestamp of the method to revert
>  - from the Monticello browser,select the package the method is in,
> and pressy History.
>  - Find the version in the list dated just after the date of the method change.
>  - Spawn history on that one.
>  - Browse changes, select the method, revert.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Ken Causey <ken at kencausey.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 20:38 -0600, Chris Muller wrote:
>>> > Squeak has been such a great journey, and its own historical path is
>>> > somewhat captured in the timestamp / author-stamp information of the
>>> > individual methods.
>>> >
>>> > I think it is worthwhile to revert methods properly; meaning to truly
>>> > revert them not just to the prior code, but to the prior accounting
>>> > record associated with that.
>>> >
>>> > With Monticello, it is relatively easy to retrieve the original method
>>> > from the prior version.  Proper reversion is one reason for keeping
>>> > around all the old versions of code.
>>> >
>>> > More importantly, however, I think we should take care to revert
>>> > methods properly so that the original history and heritage of the
>>> > object-model that is the latest and greatest Squeak image, be
>>> > preserved as much as possible.
>>> >
>>> > I do it even with just my own code, even when I'm the same initials,
>>> > because it is still worth it to me to know, _when_ was that method
>>> > written.  How long has that method been sitting there, unchanged.
>>> >
>>> > Again, I think it's worth it, and I hope others will consider the
>>> > value of adopting this practice as well.
>>> >
>>> > Thank you,
>>> >   Chris
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I wonder if there is some reasonable change to the tools that could be
>>> made to make this more natural and therefore require less forethought.
>>> I share your goal but often forget.
>>
>> Monticello could be made to ask and/or warn if one should automatically
>> revert unchanged methods if the previous version is in the package cache.
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list