So, I for one do not like the 'automatic copy' idea at all. In fact, I'd
need to disable it in any image that I ran.

Reason: some of the coding that I do gets done at my business, and
occassionally a method will be placed in the wrong package and committed
(locally).  Once I find that and remove it, I may then publish the newly
cleaned package out.  If I had to worry about the image automatically
pushing out an version that should not be released (due to possibly
exposing code that shouldn't be), then I couldn't really afford to use it.

I may be the only one with this worry.  In any case, I like to know and
have control over exactly what I release out in the wild.

-Chris


On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>wrote:

> 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 -
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20130820/603ae61f/attachment.htm