[squeak-dev] The Trunk: Monticello-eem.512.mcz

Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Thu Aug 9 21:03:18 UTC 2012


On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, thanks for considering it.
>
> Eliot, I already need to make a patch for fixing non-FileBased
> repositories so rather than collide with two versions I can go ahead
> and remove the preference.
>

OK, great.

I'll update the comment in MCVersionName as well... might need help on
> that but I'll tap on Berts shoulder if I do..
>

thanks, and apologies for all this grief, but I think it's better this way
round...


>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
> wrote:
> > On 09.08.2012, at 19:53, Chris Muller wrote:
> >
> >> Before you spend time -- what think you (and Bert) of the suggestion
> >> to have branches simply be in their own repository (its own directory
> >> of the name of the branch)?  I know it's not how you do it today, but
> >> please just imagine it in terms of the UI -- would it work?  Ok, there
> >> might be issues diffing versions *between* branches -- is that a
> >> frequent requirement?  Actually, they might both be in your
> >> package-cache so may be could be diff'd there?
> >
> >
> > It's always interesting to come up with alternatives. But I have given
> it a couple minutes of thought and come to the conclusion that no, branches
> cannot be meaningfully emulated by having multiple repositories. Encoding
> the branch in the version name is simple and works well.
> >
> > - Bert -
> >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20120809/996ad63c/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list