On 22 November 2013 10:53, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 November 2013 10:44, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Nov 2013, Frank Shearar wrote:
>>
>>> It's been over a year, and several rounds of discussion. The last round
>>> fizzled out with 'yeah ok we should do it but don't call it Author'. Really,
>>> I don't particularly care _what_ we do as long as we remove another part of
>>> Utilities. So I'm going to write a minimal thing that pulls the state out of
>>> Utilities, where it never belonged. Once the real problem - that state - has
>>> been addressed, finessing the API will be much easier.
>>
>>
>> Will your implementation be any different than what mine was?
>
> Seeing as I didn't finish anything on the train this morning, I'd far
> rather just use your implementation. Did you adjust the API to fit
> Colin's comments about #username?
>
> It looks like you've already done the work. I'm happy to be the one to
> ram it through trunk.

The only thing I don't like is the class-side replication of the
instance-side protocol. I'd rather just have a #current (which is
there already).

frank

> frank
>
>> Levente
>>
>>
>>>
>>> frank
>>>
>>> On 21 Nov 2013, at 23:05, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Back when Levente approached this, we had a detailed discussion about
>>>> it.  I think we should all go back and read that before introducing a
>>>> SystemAuthor class.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I wouldn't mind just having
>>>>
>>>>   Smalltalk authorInitials  "answers a String"
>>>>
>>>> until we decide we need to support multiple concurrent Author objects
>>>> with more than just name and initials..
>>>>
>>>> And this makes sense anyway -- Smalltalk's current #author.
>>>>
>>>> I struggle with having a whole class (SystemAuthor) when we cannot
>>>> take proper advantage of it and only really need one String field at
>>>> this time, not a heavy-weight, value-holder singleton.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21 November 2013 21:20,  <commits at source.squeak.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frank Shearar uploaded a new version of MonticelloConfigurations to
>>>>>> project The Trunk:
>>>>>> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/MonticelloConfigurations-fbs.118.mcz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ==================== Summary ====================
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Name: MonticelloConfigurations-fbs.118
>>>>>> Author: fbs
>>>>>> Time: 21 November 2013, 9:20:19.085 pm
>>>>>> UUID: aaba44a1-8cfd-4147-8d94-69d5fc5ac571
>>>>>> Ancestors: MonticelloConfigurations-cmm.117
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Move the #upgradeIsMerge preference to MCConfiguration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =============== Diff against MonticelloConfigurations-cmm.117
>>>>>> ===============
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just by the way, MonticelloConfigurations depends on System for one
>>>>> thing only now: Utilities' author stuff. I'm knocking up a completely
>>>>> lame minimal mimic-existing-stuff SystemAuthor that I will hopefully
>>>>> finish tomorrow. I plan to sever this dependency, and then remove all
>>>>> the references to Utilities authorName/Initials with SystemAuthor
>>>>> current, and then we can think about any other stuff we might do with
>>>>> this.
>>>>>
>>>>> frank