On 26 March 2013 16:08, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Post-fix release: specifically, I want 4.3's Installer to be able to
>> load packages with descriptions like 'Control (1.2)'. At the moment it
>> tries to load a package 'Control ', which of course fails.
>
> By "packages" I hope you don't mean simple Monticello .mcz packages.
> IMO mcz filenames should follow restrictive formatting rules defined
> by MCVersionName so that MC can be the best at low-level SCM as it can
> be while keeping the code maintainable.

I mean SqueakMap packages. 4.3 expects versioned package names to be
of the form "Foo(1)", and blows up if you use proper whitespacing,
like all right-thinking people do, in the form of "Foo (1)". 4.4 and
4.5 already both respect sensible whitespacing.

>> I certainly could just commit to squeak43. I'm asking how exactly I
>> should do that. Installer-Core-fbs.361 is quite a few versions ahead
>> of 4.3, so should I rather copy each of the interim mczs?
>
> If there have been a lot of changes perhaps Backporting that one fix
> is appropriate?  I don't have any experience with it, but there is a
> Backport button on MC.
>
> If you don't backport, then I'm on the fence about whether to
> duplicate the files in the squeak43 repository.  The main advantage
> would be for diffing in that repository, but as 4.3 gets older that
> will be a rare activity..

I suppose I'm half asking whether Monticello package names should have
any meaning across repositories. Would people expect
Installer-Core.fbs.999 in squeak43 to mean the same thing as
Installer-Core.fbs.999 in squeak44? _I'd_ expect not (in which case
the right thing to do is backport the one change I want), but my
question is what _others_ expect.

frank