[squeak-dev] Monticello UI unexpected behavior (was: Monticello model corrupt after network error)

Jakob Reschke jakres+squeak at gmail.com
Sun May 1 19:35:55 UTC 2022

Agreed, there is no real use case where you would want to create such
versions manually. Git prohibits it as well, unless you specify
--allow-empty when committing.

Detecting the situation in Monticello and adding a guard would be easy
I suppose, but I would not make it a priority. The handling makes the
implementation more complicated (how to signal, how to handle, in a
GUI workflow vs. a scripted workflow, ...) and the benefit is minimal,
since one can clearly see by oneself that there are no changes in the
save dialog. :-)

Also note that even if you have changes, you can "ignore" all of them
in the save dialog, so we would also have to check again after the
save dialog was accepted.

Am So., 1. Mai 2022 um 21:09 Uhr schrieb Lauren Pullen <drurowin at gmail.com>:
> Hi Jakob,
> On 4/30/22 15:35, Jakob Reschke wrote:
> > Technically it is possible to create new versions that do not
> > introduce any changes. I do not know whether this is by design or not.
> > It is certainly not necessary to prevent it.
> >
> > Is your design bug inquiry only about the asymmetry between "Changes"
> > and "Save", where the former has a special case for "no changes", but
> > the latter does not have it? Or did you expect something else to be
> > different or behave differently as well?
> It's the asymmetry between Changes and Save.  My experience with version
> control software is that you cannot store a commit that makes no
> change... why would you?
> It does no harm, but it certainly was surprising.  ;)

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list