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

Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com
Thu Feb 14 09:07:56 UTC 2019

Hi Chris,
i don't like this change because it looses a very important thing:

Monotonicity doesn't count as long as you have a tool that can sort out the
Since we always browse the versions thru some MC tools it's superfluous.
Monotonicity is mainly for helping us poor humans to quckly identify the
relationship between two packages in the graph.

This is only going to work with 3 to 5 figures in version number.
With 10 figures, this is ruining our brain and just does not work.
Please revert or put in inbox purgatory while we have a chance to discuss

As for uniqueness, this is a small problem.
As long as we have unique ID, then we should use that for storing and
retrieving a package.
The ID is stored in the ancestry, so it's just a matter of using the ID as
filename in the backend rather than the ambiguous package name.
It's more complex because we have to change our servers and protocols, but
it would be the right thing to do.
I think that you are doing the easy but and not the right one with your
quick and clever hack.

Le jeu. 14 févr. 2019 à 05:23, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> a écrit :

> 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/20190214/0d3ae74f/attachment.html>

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list