Never get involved in a land war in Asia;)

On Sep 9, 2010, at 10:08 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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/20100909/63298351/attachment.htm