Personally, I think we should leave the names alone and let the
'ancestry' determine the... ancestry.

Because otherwise the names could get "out of sync" with real
ancestry; or some tools of the future would invariably rely on parsing
names (yuck) to determine ancestry rather than the actual domain.

I, personally, don't think such naming is that great of a benefit;
because whereever there are majorly-different branches of a package,
they are worked on in different *images*; and they don't even have to
be in separate MC repositories at all, even with FileBased; because
you can see the real History straight from the domain object
(MCVersionInfo) via the "History" button, which excludes all of the
versions from the "other" branch.  So I don't see that complicated
naming solves any real problem..

 - Chris



On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011, Hannes Hirzel wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/11, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Interesting naming scheme; is that something we should "document" in
>>> MCVersionName?
>>
>> Yes, please
>
> The question was not about if there should be some documentation added or
> not, but whether if this naming convetion is/should be widely used. There's
> at least one other existing naming scheme for branches
> (http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3328 ), but IIRC we used to use something for
> Gjallar too.
> So IMHO if it's added to the class comment, then it should only be a
> suggestion for future users.
>
>
> Levente
>
>>
>> --Hannes
>>
>>>
>>> Also, just to clarify our words, MC _does_ support branches in the
>>> domain, just not names for them.  But in terms of the ancestry, you
>>> can unlimited branching, which could be rendered if the tools were
>>> improved to do that..  Adding a name to something can often be done
>>> via external annotation, notwithstanding this naming scheme..
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Colin Putney <colin at wiresong.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Eliot Miranda
>>>> <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Use some false initials that name the branch, and start its version
>>>>> numbers
>>>>> from e.g. 1.  So I name my open-source Cog versions VMMaker-oscog.N.
>>>>>  The
>>>>> package still has my initials as author.  David is using
>>>>> VMMaker-oscog.dtl.N, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, MC does have some support for branching. If you use the
>>>> following convention, MC will do the "right" thing - group the
>>>> branched versions together in the UI, automatically suggest a version
>>>> name that's on a branch, and still allow you to merge between
>>>> branches. The naming convention is:
>>>>
>>>> <package>.<branch>-<initials>.<id>
>>>>
>>>> So if Eliot were using the standard convention, his versions would be
>>>> named like this:
>>>>
>>>> VMMaker.oscog-eem.147
>>>>
>>>> Colin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>