[squeak-dev] Re: The Trunk: Monticello-bf.399.mcz

Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Thu Sep 9 17:08:15 UTC 2010


On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>wrote:

> On 09.09.2010, at 17:58, Andreas Raab wrote:
>
> > I really like this but I am wondering: Why are the changes only listed as
> a reminder and not kept in the checkin comment? One of the biggest
> difficulties that I often have is finding out where exactly a method got
> modified in the history of some package which is exactly what's provided
> here. It also gives a scope for how sweeping the changes in a particular
> package versions were.
> >
> > So I vote for leaving the information in the checkin comment.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >  - Andreas
>
>
> Well, that's how other SCM handle it, and where I got the idea from. The
> comment should be written and not be generated, I think.
>
> E.g. when I look at a package's version history on squeaksource, I'd hate
> having to see the modified methods all the time. Maybe we need a "-v" button
> ;)
>
> Listing the difference between two versions should really be a separate
> operation IMHO and not be part of the comment (where it would also be
> unreliable). We lack UI for that, true, but I'd rather wait for that than
> cluttering the comments now, which we can't undo later.
>
> I wouldn't mind storing the modifications as a separate field in
> MCVersionInfo as much, although the version history already takes up quite a
> chunk of space in an MCZ package. Making it even larger is not a good idea
> imho.
>

[I feel like Vizini this a.m.]

For me being able to find out in what version a method changed would be very
valuable, so like Andreas I would like the changes in the version history.
But for me being able to upload and download packages quickly is vey
important, so like Bert I would not like the changes in the version history.
Since we know that currently the version history does not include method
change history we know that adding the info at this stage would not yield
benefits for a long time.
But if we wrote an offline tool we could collect that version history from
existing and future package files and put it in a parallel file to each
package file with a different extension to mcz and if that file behaved
sufficiently like an mcz then the versions browser could show it.

Time to take some Iocane powder.

2¢
Eliot


> - Bert -
>
> > On 9/7/2010 7:29 PM, commits at source.squeak.org wrote:
> >> Bert Freudenberg uploaded a new version of Monticello to project The
> Trunk:
> >> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Monticello-bf.399.mcz
> >>
> >> ==================== Summary ====================
> >>
> >> Name: Monticello-bf.399
> >> Author: bf
> >> Time: 4 September 2010, 7:06:03.314 pm
> >> UUID: d34224f4-a77d-44ec-9981-4a9e6fec5d29
> >> Ancestors: Monticello-ar.398
> >>
> >> When saving a package, the changes about to be committed are listed as a
> reminder.
> >>
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100909/4ae65863/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list