With the small utility that i just added, I did find the merge of the two
Monticello-bf.540
It's Monticello-topa.599 from september 2014.
So we effectively have both bf.540 packages as valid ancestors, one in
trunk, the other in the inbox, but we cannot have them both in same
repository.
We could perform some chirurgy, renaming inbox/Monticello-bf.540 with a
branch name => Monticello.partialCommit-bf.540
But then, we will have to apply this chirurgy to every offspring down to
working copy, and republish every offspring package...
Since 2014, that's quite some progeny!

I guess that we should also apply this to the inbox offsprings, and let the
responsibility of updating any other replication to their owner...
We can as well ignore the problem, move inbox/Monticello-bf.540 to
TreatedInbox, since MC is robust to missing packages...
Thoughts?


Le jeu. 14 févr. 2019 à 02:07, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> a
écrit :

> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 05:46:17PM +0100, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
> > Still cleaning the inbox...
> > I see this:
> >
> >
> > *Name: Monticello-bf.540Author: bfTime: 3 May 2013, 12:06:01.01 pmUUID:
> > 759525eb-5ca8-4ab2-9e4a-bddc7d0680dcAncestors: Monticello-bf.532,
> > Monticello-fbs.539This is my allow-partial-commits mod, improved to
> always
> > diff to the target repository, and merged with the latest fbs.359 trunk
> > version.*
> >
> > It is not signalled as false ancestor, so it means that this ancestor is
> in
> > history, or another package in history has same UUID (unlikely!).
> >
> > But in trunk there is a different package:
> >
> >
> > *Name: Monticello-bf.540Author: bfTime: 4 May 2013, 8:13:11.165 pmUUID:
> > b8904753-a5e5-4061-a912-49480229e91aAncestors: Monticello-fbs.539Add
> > MCReorganizationPreloader which can resolve moves between arbitrary
> > packages.*
> >
> > Do we really have two different Monticello-bf.540 in ancestors or what?
> > Is there a morphic tool to visualize the ancestry graph?
>
> No, such a tool does not exist. But I think that it would be very helpful
> to have one.
>
> Many years ago, we could use the combination of Connectors and GraphViz,
> an external program driven by OSProcess, to make nice interactive graphs
> in Squeak. This might be a good way to visualize the ancestry.
>
> In principle, the conflicting names can be moved to treated inbox or
> just deleted. But conflicting names do happen, and I think it is helpful
> if the tools can help indentify these cases, and to visualize the actual
> ancentry graph.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20190214/63508508/attachment.html>