[squeak-dev] Withdrawing submissions from inbox (was: The Inbox: Collections-cmm.870.mcz)
asqueaker at gmail.com
Sun Jan 5 00:43:28 UTC 2020
The Inbox is a place where things are placed for collaboration and review.
It's perfectly normal that < 100% of submissions there will end up in
trunk, and so there will always be "stale" versions being made through the
normal course of business. There's a button on the web site (access
controlled) for treating the stale versions. As a community, we maintain
full control over the Inbox.
We also have full control over the ancestry. Merging items from the Inbox
nearly invariably involves making a new version. Since the ancestry is a
permanent output affecting every current and future image, its important to
prioritize its shape and size over the temporary, personal conveniences of
I hope I answered your question and, if I have stale versions you'd like me
to clean up, please accept my apology and let me know which one(s) so I can
get it cleaned up. There is no Collections-cmm.869, but I'm sure I have
some old ones out there that could be treated...
On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 4:39 PM Jakob Reschke <forums.jakob at resfarm.de>
> Hi Chris, hi all,
> Chris, in your effort to omit intermediary or flawed versions from the
> ancestry, you produce stale versions in the inbox, in this case
> Collections-cmm.869 if I remember correctly.
> How can we make sure that no Trunk committer (you are a Trunk committer
> Chris and can handle this yourself, but in general someone else might do
> it) will merge these versions that you wanted to omit?
> If that happens, the ancestry will be "complete" again, which you wanted
> to avoid, and moreover it will look confusing (branches and merges instead
> of plain linear, actual history). I am still opposed to such omissions, but
> let's focus on the "if it happens, what then" part instead.
> The omitted versions should be removed from the inbox, either by treating
> them or by withdrawing them (which is not directly possible at the moment,
> right?). How can we implement a reasonably reliable process with
> communication rules to handle such cases? Or is there already one that
> works? I don't think we can expect every treating Trunk committer to read
> through all the mails and ancillary threads to identify, or derive
> implicitly as in this case, which versions are stale.
> Kind regards,
> Am Sa., 4. Jan. 2020 um 23:09 Uhr schrieb <commits at source.squeak.org>:
>> Chris Muller uploaded a new version of Collections to project The Inbox:
>> ==================== Summary ====================
>> Name: Collections-cmm.870
>> Author: cmm
>> Time: 4 January 2020, 4:08:57.317384 pm
>> UUID: c4bf7594-c44e-4d02-9956-2b727d2eb75b
>> Ancestors: Collections-fn.869, Collections-ul.867
>> Tweak ul.867 so that:
>> Dictionary new: 3
>> is not significantly slower than:
>> Dictionary new
>> =============== Diff against Collections-fn.869 ===============
>> Item was changed:
>> ----- Method: HashedCollection class>>goodPrimeAtLeast: (in category
>> 'sizing') -----
>> goodPrimeAtLeast: lowerLimit
>> + "Answer the smallest good prime >= lowerlimit.
>> + If lowerLimit is larger than the largest known good prime, just
>> make it odd.
>> + Use linear search, and exponential search to speed up cases when
>> lowerLimit is small (<2500 and <100000, respectively)."
>> - "Answer the next good prime >= lowerlimit.
>> - If lowerLimit is larger than the largest known good prime,
>> - just make it odd."
>> + | high mid low prime primes |
>> - | low mid high prime primes |
>> primes := self goodPrimes.
>> + (primes at: primes size) < lowerLimit ifTrue: [
>> - high := primes size.
>> - lowerLimit > (primes at: high) ifTrue: [
>> ^lowerLimit bitOr: 1 ].
>> + lowerLimit < 2500 ifTrue: [
>> + "Use linear search when the limit is small. The boundary
>> is based on measurements."
>> + high := 1.
>> + [
>> + (prime := primes at: high) >= lowerLimit ifTrue:
>> [ ^prime ].
>> + high := high + 1 ] repeat ].
>> + lowerLimit < 100000
>> + ifTrue: [
>> + "Use exponential search when the limit is not too
>> large. The boundary is based on measurements."
>> + high := 1.
>> + [ (primes at: high) < lowerLimit ] whileTrue: [
>> + high := high * 2 ].
>> + low := high // 2 + 1. "high // 2 was smaller than
>> lowerLimit" ]
>> + ifFalse: [
>> + "Regular binary search."
>> + low := 1.
>> + high := primes size ].
>> - low := 1.
>> [ high - low <= 1 ] whileFalse: [
>> mid := high + low // 2.
>> prime := primes at: mid.
>> lowerLimit < prime
>> ifTrue: [ high := mid ]
>> ifFalse: [
>> lowerLimit > prime
>> ifTrue: [ low := mid ]
>> ifFalse: [ ^prime ] ] ].
>> (primes at: low) >= lowerLimit ifTrue: [ ^primes at: low ].
>> ^primes at: high!
>> Item was changed:
>> ----- Method: HashedCollection>>compact (in category 'private') -----
>> "Reduce the size of array so that the load factor will be ~75%."
>> | newCapacity |
>> + newCapacity := self class sizeFor: tally.
>> - newCapacity := self class goodPrimeAtLeast: tally * 4 // 3.
>> self growTo: newCapacity!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev