On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, H. Hirzel wrote:

> Has this been fixed in the meantime so that the Omnibrowser load

As far as I know, there has been no new Metacello configuration published, 
so no.

> script may be replaced with the Refactoring Engine load script in the
> workspace which opens after choosing 'Help' / 'Extending the system'?

It should be replaced anyway, since OB will probably not load into the 
Trunk.

Levente

>
> --Hannes
>
> On 7/4/18, Levente Uzonyi <leves at caesar.elte.hu> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jul 2018, Tobias Pape wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> If you evaluate the proposed snippet in a Trunk image, you'll find that
>> the loaded Refactoring Engine code sends deprecated methods and there is
>> no support for the new class formats introduced by Spur.
>>
>> Levente
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 There are some SqueakMap entries but they are outdated.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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>