The package cache is treated special anyway. I don't know what would happen if you would added it explicitely. Maybe you would also have to manually update it if the package-cache location changes?

Best,
marcel
Am 17.06.2020 19:21:46 schrieb Jakob Reschke <forums.jakob at resfarm.de>:
Why did the repositoryGroup not contain the package cache? the cache is displayed for all working copies as far as I know. Or is that just a hack of MCWorkingCopyBrowser as well...?


<commits at source.squeak.org [mailto:commits at source.squeak.org]> schrieb am Di., 16. Juni 2020, 14:06:

Marcel Taeumel uploaded a new version of Monticello to project The Trunk:
http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Monticello-mt.724.mcz [http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Monticello-mt.724.mcz]

==================== Summary ====================

Name: Monticello-mt.724
Author: mt
Time: 16 June 2020, 2:06:17.310762 pm
UUID: a6026367-76f2-d84d-9fd2-2a829c174d64
Ancestors: Monticello-mt.723

Also check the package cache when looking for a new unique version name because that cache may hold local experiments.

=============== Diff against Monticello-mt.723 ===============

Item was changed:
  ----- Method: MCWorkingCopy>>uniqueVersionName (in category 'private') -----
  uniqueVersionName
        |versionName|
        counter := nil.
        [versionName := self nextVersionName.
+       (MCRepository packageCache includesVersionNamed: versionName)
+               or: [self repositoryGroup includesVersionNamed: versionName]] whileTrue.
-       self repositoryGroup includesVersionNamed: versionName] whileTrue.
        ^ versionName!


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20200617/905db91a/attachment.html>