In general renaming mcz files is a way to mess up your day.  mcz files have
an internal identifier which is independent of the file name.  What this
means is that version histories will try to look up the previous version by
file name but then decide that the file found isn't the right one, and
refuse to do nice things.

At least,that's what I remember from trying to rename mcz files in the past.

-cbc


On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>wrote:

> n 10 December 2013 00:21, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> PS -- Since it was for aesthetic reasons, it would be better and more
> >>> consistent if it were named "ToolBuilder-Tests" instead of
> >>> "ToolBuilderTests".
> >>
> >> Sure, but then Monticello forces you to have as many packages as there
> are
> >> ToolBuilder-Foo thingies, right?  That's ok for ToolBuilder, but for
> Tools
> >
> > I was talking about ToolBuilder-*, not Tools.  The other packages in
> > the family are
> >
> >   ToolBuilder-Morphic
> >   ToolBuilder-MVC
> >   ToolBuilder-SUnit
> >
> > Whoa!  ALL of which have no definitions!  Frank is this something you
> > modularized out?  So we should somehow remove these WorkingCopy's from
> > the trunk image.  Via some postscript perhaps?
>
> Nah, I just did the wrong thing. Worse, I even paused to think about
> the package name before doing the wrong thing. The question is: how to
> rename the package? It's trivial to rename the package through the UI.
> But now I have a ToolBuilderTests-fbs.2. Is the right thing to do the
> following?:
> * rename the mcz to ToolBuilder-Tests-fbs.2
> * copy that to trunk
> * change the config map to reference this instead of ToolBuilderTests-fbs.1
>
> frank
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20131210/8df54f1e/attachment.htm