On 2013-08-16, at 17:16, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> I thought you were implicitly expressing conditional approval by this
> suggestion..

Didn't mean to imply that. I just want to argue against the best possible case you could have made, not getting hung up on minor flaws. ;)

Besides, we may end up using this after all, so far I am alone in speaking out against the idea.

- Bert -



> 
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>> On 2013-08-15, at 16:55, commits at source.squeak.org wrote:
>> 
>>> Chris Muller uploaded a new version of Monticello to project The Trunk:
>>> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Monticello-cmm.558.mcz
>>> 
>>> ==================== Summary ====================
>>> 
>>> Name: Monticello-cmm.558
>>> Author: cmm
>>> Time: 15 August 2013, 11:55:22.698 am
>>> UUID: 90d5e73c-dd83-4b82-82c0-7c1a48814f51
>>> Ancestors: Monticello-cmm.557
>>> 
>>> - If an older version is not found in the repository it should be in, copy it where it should from the MCRepositoryGroup default.  If it's not found there, signal an error that it needs to be copied there.
>> 
>> 
>> I don't think just browsing something should cause a commit to an arbitrary repository.
>> 
>> It's much more likely that a child of this info is in a repository (or even in the image) that has the full ancestry data. You don't need to load that specific version, any descendant will do. The most recent would be the best bet, I'd think.
>> 
>> - Bert -
>> 
>>