[squeak-dev] Cleaning unneeded UpdateStreamDownloader

Edgar De Cleene edgardec2005 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 22 15:17:18 UTC 2018

Could send this to Cuis list ?
Like what Juan have to said.

> On 22 Jul 2018, at 09:49, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Edgar,
> Yes, there are good reasons for not using .cs.
> .cs do not scale. Or history has to be purely linear, which does not happen in real world.
> Merging concurrent versions is impractical, or even impossible without a history of branches.
> I've used .cs for more than ten years in the 90s, and even with a team reduced to 3 persons, it was far from ideal!
> Some features would take time to implement, and inevitably lead to conflicts.
> We finally had to put version history in method/class comments (author+timestamp+reason of change).
> A poor man source code versionning that bloated the source code with orthogonal information...
> I separated UpdateStream in own package in 2013 for the purpose of removing it, but this is unfinished work...
> One has to check if there are not unique implementor sends leaking outside the package.
> 2018-07-22 13:20 GMT+02:00 Edgar J. De Cleene <edgardec2005 at gmail.com <mailto:edgardec2005 at gmail.com>>:
> I wish we have .cs as in old days , but some people like using clumsy tools.
> So if we do not use .cs anymore why have UpdateStreamDownloader and related
> to lo download .cs from server ?
> Edgar
> @morplenauta

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20180722/30d9f69f/attachment.html>

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list