Ok, so then let's continue discussing if your contribution should be
included into the trunk or if it should be in a loadable package on
Squeaksource.

--Hannes

On 4/15/11, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at angband.za.org> wrote:
> On 2011/04/15 18:21, Hannes Hirzel wrote:
>> On 4/11/11, Frank Shearar<frank.shearar at angband.za.org>  wrote:
>>> On 2011/04/11 01:46, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Frank Shearar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When I load it into a virgin image I follow the order above. I
>>>>> wouldn't stake my life on it being entirely 100% correct. There might
>>>>> be some interaction between the Morphic and Tools packages, in
>>>>> particular, because the Morphic version has changes to how Browsers
>>>>> open.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have, for instance, noticed that my image "goes away" sometimes when
>>>>> I load Morphic. I can hit alt-. and abandon the process, and
>>>>> everything Just Works.
>>>>
>>>> I finally set up my Trunk clone, where I could test the integration of
>>>> your changes. I didn't face the problem you described, but I found
>>>> another one. MessageSets (senders, implementors, etc) opened before the
>>>> update will have their messageListIndex instance variable uninitialized.
>>>> This means that #messageListIndex will return nil instead of an integer.
>>>> So if I had some senders/implementors browsers open before the update, I
>>>> get a debugger for each of them after it. Implementing #messageListIndex
>>>> as
>>>>
>>>> ^messageListIndex ifNil: [ 0 ]
>>>>
>>>> solves this issue. The state of the browsers will not be preserved this
>>>> way, but it's not worth writing complex migration code for this IMHO.
>>>
>>> Ah yes, because of instvar move: the new MessageSet instvar will be nil,
>>> and nothing's yet set it to a valid value (i.e., an index).
>>>
>>> See version 339!
>>>
>>> frank
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> What is the decision on this?
>>
>> And: Do we need to keep the old versions in the inbox?
>
> Levente said that _all_ versions should be into Treated when everyone's
> happy, so that we have complete and entire Monticello histories.
>
> Of course, I can't comment on the decision :)
>
> frank
>
>