update-fbs.270

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
> No. Updating from the latest alpha image is what I did, and definitely
> does have ToolBuilderTests. Look in the manifest of the latest
> SqueakTrunk build
> (http://build.squeak.org/job/SqueakTrunk/667/console):
>
> <snip>
> 2013-12-12T02:46:47.668000014+01:00: ToolBuilderTests (fbs.1)
> 2013-12-12T02:46:47.668000015+01:00: Tools (nice.508)
> 2013-12-12T02:46:47.668000016+01:00: ToolsTests (fbs.67)
> <snip>
>
> frank
>
> On 12 December 2013 19:48, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Updating from the lastest alpha image, which is how we'll produce release
>> image, will never get ToolBuilderTests.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah, but that unloading was manual?
>>>
>>> frank
>>>
>>> On 12 December 2013 19:16, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I have ToolBuilder-Tests after updating from trunk.  I unloaded
>>> > ToolBuilderTests.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Frank Shearar
>>> > <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Despite the lack of a ToolBuilderTests, and the presence of a
>>> >> ToolBuilder-Tests package, Monticello Browser tells me that I have a
>>> >> ToolBuilderTests, not a ToolBuilder-Tests.
>>> >>
>>> >> frank
>>> >>
>>> >> On 11 December 2013 20:56, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > OK, I think I've done the right thing - mind giving it a check?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > frank
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On 11 December 2013 11:20, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> Thanks, Chris. I've prepped the changes, and I'll push them tonight.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> frank
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On 11 December 2013 02:19, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>> - delete ToolBuilderTests-fbs.2  too, since you have its code in
>>> >> >>> the
>>> >> >>> new -1.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Chris Muller
>>> >> >>> <ma.chris.m at gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>> Since there is no ancestry yet, you can remove the ancestry and
>>> >> >>>> start
>>> >> >>>> over:
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> - Delete working copy ToolBuilderTests.
>>> >> >>>> - Add ToolBuilderTests back (+Package button).  Ancestry is now
>>> >> >>>> clean.
>>> >> >>>> - Use the rename function from the menu to rename ToolBuilderTests
>>> >> >>>> to
>>> >> >>>> ToolBuilder-Tests.
>>> >> >>>> - Save ToolBuilder-Tests-fbs.1.
>>> >> >>>> - delete ToolBuilderTests-fbs.1 from the repository.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:10 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
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>