[squeak-dev] The Inbox: Monticello-cmm.1550112371873461.mcz

Jakob Reschke forums.jakob at resfarm.de
Thu Feb 14 09:05:55 UTC 2019

Should the numbers be relevant at all, except for human recognizing maybe?
All that should count internally is the ancestry anyway. And the versions
already have UUIDs, what more do they need.

Git has not had consecutive numbers for more than 13 years and it works
quite well... Mercurial does have them, but does not rely on them and the
are assigned differently in each clone.

Am Do., 14. Feb. 2019, 05:24 hat Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com>

> HI Eliot,
> > > On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > What are the two most-important properties we want from our
> > > versionNumber?  Monotonicity and uniqueness.  The current scheme only
> > > provides the former, this uses DateAndTime now utcMicroseconds to
> > > provide the latter, too.  As a bonus it also happens to encode the
> > > save timestamp into the VersionName, so available without having to
> > > open the file.
> > >
> > > I admit it looks intimidating given what we're used to seeing, but
> > > what of the added safety and utility?
> >
> > It is trumped by the illegibility.
> Not as bad as it appears, since the high-order digits will be the same
> between version #'s, plus, second-resolution should be sufficient, so
> versions in a list would actually look like this:
>     Monticello-cmm-1550203798
>     Monticello-cmm-1550117398
>     Monticello-cmm-1550030998
> Whilst still retaining all of the utility.  Maybe even a setting in
> the tools could hide the high-order digits in the UI if we wanted...
> We're already into 4 digits in our version #'s anyway so....
> > When was the discussion around this change?
> You're participating in it now.   :)
> There was another change to earlier today that you may be interested
> in asking that question about too, since it changed 19-year old
> SequenceableCollection>>#= with a one-day old replacement and actually
> went into trunk.  This one is in the Inbox.
> > I’ve been out if things (apologies) but I find this change quite
> horrible.
> I understand this initial gut reaction, but I hope you'll think and
> sleep on it, and help think about the problem and some alternative
> solutions you like better.  VersionName uniqueness is important for
> the Monticello model.
> Best,
>   Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20190214/af2ac3f9/attachment.html>

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list