> On 02.07.2018, at 15:26, Levente Uzonyi <leves at caesar.elte.hu> wrote:
> 
> +1, but the configuration has to be updated first to load the correct versions.

ok.. can you elaborate?


> 
> Levente
> 
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, H. Hirzel wrote:
> 
>> Proposal
>> 
>> Take the result of this discussion
>> 
>>  Installer ensureRecentMetacello.
>>  Metacello new
>>              configuration: 'RefactoringTools';
>>              load.
>> 
>> 
>> and put it into the Squeak help file subject 'Extending the system'
>> thus replacing the Omnibrowser script.
>> 
>> --Hannes
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 5/11/18, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 10.05.2018, at 18:41, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> ... and... how to get Metacello please?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Installer ensureRecentMetacello
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 10.05.2018, at 09:19, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hello
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Following up on this thread.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Where do I get the latest version of the RefactoringTools updated for
>>>>>> the most recent trunk version?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There are some SqueakMap entries but they are outdated.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/831
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> seems to give recent information as well.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is the most recent info.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I short, if you have Metacello,
>>>>> 
>>>>>      Metacello new
>>>>>              configuration: 'RefactoringTools';
>>>>>              load.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's about it.
>>>>> Marcel and Me will keep the Config up to date.
>>>>> We have not made any SqueakMap entries.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>      -Tobias
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --Hannes
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 11/3/17, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Jacob,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Jakob Reschke
>>>>>>> <forums.jakob at resfarm.de>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Am 02.11.2017 7:11 nachm. schrieb "Eliot Miranda"
>>>>>>>> <eliot.miranda at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel at hpi.de>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Next step would be to build a preview tool that supports add/remove
>>>>>>>>> steps
>>>>>>>>> of a refactoring. For example, a "rename message" might tackle too
>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>> methods. That is, there is no scoping at the moment.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> OK.  We likely definitely want to scope by package(s), right?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Unless you wanted to say "packages, not classes or categories" I do
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> think so. Mostly because projects/software is often divided into -Core
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> -Tests packages. Or think of -Examples, -Plugins, -Extensions... So I
>>>>>>>> fear
>>>>>>>> explicit input of the scope (a set of packages) will be required.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think offering two scopes is adequate:
>>>>>>> a) the entire system
>>>>>>> b) classes and extension methods whose package name matches either a
>>>>>>> prefix
>>>>>>> or a pattern
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Using package dependencies (like in ENVY) would be nice, but they are
>>>>>>>> unmaintained in Monticello (often only supplied with Metacello).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Oh, and my Environments bell is ringing again... ;-)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Remember that one can always generate more narrowly scoped refactoring
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> 1. performing the refactoring on some larger scope (e.g. the entire
>>>>>>> system)
>>>>>>> 2. quitting the system
>>>>>>> 3. using the changes crash recovery tool to select the desired
>>>>>>> refactorings
>>>>>>> or by using method versions to revert any unwanted
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So having a simple generally useful scope such as package or package
>>>>>>> prefix
>>>>>>> would work for me.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _,,,^..^,,,_
>>>>>>> best, Eliot
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>