[ANN] MCInfoProxy
Locked
12
12
 
|
A little ditty to move toward sustainable ancestry. After selecting
"flush cached versions" from the menu, the ancestry-tree will now be like this: aMCVersionInfo.27 'ancestry' = anArray 1 = aMCVersionInfo.26 'ancestry' = anArray 1 = aMCVersionInfo.25 'ancestry' = anArray 1 = aMCInfoProxy(trimmed 'info', 'repository' to re-retrieve it) Truncating the ancestry hierarchies this way recovers about 2.5MB of image size. Special notes: - It keeps the most-recent 10 and snips off the ancestry starting 10-versions ago to replace it with a MCInfoProxy. Most any operation that uses ancestry will cause the original full MCVersionInfo tree to need to be re-retrieved. - This assumes the Info of 10 versions ago exists in the same repository as the current version. In practice, it normally will. - When a new version is saved after recovering the Info tree from ANOTHER FILE. (e.g., the one 10 versions ago) the result is an ancestry tree built from multiple files. But it's the same tree, so this should be no problem. |
|
|
I had a different idea to solve this issue:
Unroll the ancestry tree to a list. Create a modified MCScanner, which can read a list of versions. A list item would look like the current tree nodes, but the ancestry and stepChildren lists were just references to the actual ancestors/stepChildren in the list. This would enable partial parsing of the ancestry info. A reference could contain the position of the referenced list item in the version list, so we wouldn't have to parse the intermediate elements. For backwards compatibility this new version list would be stored in a separate file in the .mcz files. This way old versions of MC could still load the package, but newer versions with the new scanner could read them much faster. Levente On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Chris Muller wrote: > A little ditty to move toward sustainable ancestry. After selecting > "flush cached versions" from the menu, the ancestry-tree will now be > like this: > > aMCVersionInfo.27 > 'ancestry' = anArray > 1 = aMCVersionInfo.26 > 'ancestry' = anArray > 1 = aMCVersionInfo.25 > 'ancestry' = anArray > 1 = aMCInfoProxy(trimmed 'info', > 'repository' to re-retrieve it) > > Truncating the ancestry hierarchies this way recovers about 2.5MB of image size. > > Special notes: > > - It keeps the most-recent 10 and snips off the ancestry starting > 10-versions ago to replace it with a MCInfoProxy. Most any operation > that uses ancestry will cause the original full MCVersionInfo tree to > need to be re-retrieved. > > - This assumes the Info of 10 versions ago exists in the same > repository as the current version. In practice, it normally will. > > - When a new version is saved after recovering the Info tree from > ANOTHER FILE. (e.g., the one 10 versions ago) the result is an > ancestry tree built from multiple files. But it's the same tree, so > this should be no problem. > > |
|
|
When you say it would "enable partial parsing of the ancestry info" I didn't quite understand how you achieve that. That's what the new Scanner does? If you want to put it to Inbox I'm sure it'll make more sense and we can evaluate both approaches.
I like what you seem to be saying about trying to trim it on _load_ so we can always just have a "right-sized" image. It might be a pipe-dream for either implementation though, which is why, for now, to have it as part of the flush-all-caches operation. So the sizes are, "large and fast" or "as small as possible," which fit two use-cases, development and deployment, respectively.
The only way to have something in-between those two is to flush-caches in your dev image and keep developing. After a big release of all of them, only the projects that are worked on enough to invoke their history will be put back in the image. So that's one way to "right-size" between the big and small.
Let me tell you the last step I'd planned for my Proxy implementation. The only ancestry access in MCAncestry is pretty much allAncestorsDo: type stuff that ends up traversing the whole tree. We could instead have a Preference of some kind (pragma-based, of course), which defines the size of what should be considered "recentHistory". Like, something between 10 and 100.
MCWorkingCopy>>#stubAncestry would be updated to stub everything older than the preference setting. Finally, all the operations which today are using allAncestorsDo: would change to use "recentAncestorsDo:" so that the Proxy would never be hit. The preference could be adjusted to balance between development and deployment interests.
Whether this more complex "sizing" capability would stop me from just doing a flush-all-caches before deployment.. or care during development.. probably not. So that's is why I wonder whether attempting this is useful... I had a different idea to solve this issue: |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-3
On 14 August 2013 19:57, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> A little ditty to move toward sustainable ancestry. After selecting > "flush cached versions" from the menu, the ancestry-tree will now be > like this: > > aMCVersionInfo.27 > 'ancestry' = anArray > 1 = aMCVersionInfo.26 > 'ancestry' = anArray > 1 = aMCVersionInfo.25 > 'ancestry' = anArray > 1 = aMCInfoProxy(trimmed 'info', > 'repository' to re-retrieve it) > > Truncating the ancestry hierarchies this way recovers about 2.5MB of image size. > > Special notes: > > - It keeps the most-recent 10 and snips off the ancestry starting > 10-versions ago to replace it with a MCInfoProxy. Most any operation > that uses ancestry will cause the original full MCVersionInfo tree to > need to be re-retrieved. > > - This assumes the Info of 10 versions ago exists in the same > repository as the current version. In practice, it normally will. > > - When a new version is saved after recovering the Info tree from > ANOTHER FILE. (e.g., the one 10 versions ago) the result is an > ancestry tree built from multiple files. But it's the same tree, so > this should be no problem. I'm sure you're already thinking about this, but we need to be careful to maintain compatibility with old MCZs. In particular, we need to be able to consume MCZs with full histories, and have images without this enhancement still work with the new style MCZs. It might well be worth asking some Pharo folks what they think, and maybe coordinate a bit across dialects. frank |
|
|
On 8/15/13, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 19:57, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: >> A little ditty to move toward sustainable ancestry. After selecting >> "flush cached versions" from the menu, the ancestry-tree will now be >> like this: >> >> aMCVersionInfo.27 >> 'ancestry' = anArray >> 1 = aMCVersionInfo.26 >> 'ancestry' = anArray >> 1 = aMCVersionInfo.25 >> 'ancestry' = anArray >> 1 = aMCInfoProxy(trimmed 'info', >> 'repository' to re-retrieve it) >> >> Truncating the ancestry hierarchies this way recovers about 2.5MB of image >> size. >> >> Special notes: >> >> - It keeps the most-recent 10 and snips off the ancestry starting >> 10-versions ago to replace it with a MCInfoProxy. Most any operation >> that uses ancestry will cause the original full MCVersionInfo tree to >> need to be re-retrieved. >> >> - This assumes the Info of 10 versions ago exists in the same >> repository as the current version. In practice, it normally will. >> >> - When a new version is saved after recovering the Info tree from >> ANOTHER FILE. (e.g., the one 10 versions ago) the result is an >> ancestry tree built from multiple files. But it's the same tree, so >> this should be no problem. > > I'm sure you're already thinking about this, but we need to be careful > to maintain compatibility with old MCZs. In particular, we need to be > able to consume MCZs with full histories, and have images without this > enhancement still work with the new style MCZs. > It might well be worth > asking some Pharo folks what they think, and maybe coordinate a bit > across dialects. > > frank > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Shearar-3
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 19:57, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: >> A little ditty to move toward sustainable ancestry. After selecting >> "flush cached versions" from the menu, the ancestry-tree will now be >> like this: >> >> aMCVersionInfo.27 >> 'ancestry' = anArray >> 1 = aMCVersionInfo.26 >> 'ancestry' = anArray >> 1 = aMCVersionInfo.25 >> 'ancestry' = anArray >> 1 = aMCInfoProxy(trimmed 'info', >> 'repository' to re-retrieve it) >> >> Truncating the ancestry hierarchies this way recovers about 2.5MB of image size. >> >> Special notes: >> >> - It keeps the most-recent 10 and snips off the ancestry starting >> 10-versions ago to replace it with a MCInfoProxy. Most any operation >> that uses ancestry will cause the original full MCVersionInfo tree to >> need to be re-retrieved. >> >> - This assumes the Info of 10 versions ago exists in the same >> repository as the current version. In practice, it normally will. >> >> - When a new version is saved after recovering the Info tree from >> ANOTHER FILE. (e.g., the one 10 versions ago) the result is an >> ancestry tree built from multiple files. But it's the same tree, so >> this should be no problem. > > I'm sure you're already thinking about this, but we need to be careful > to maintain compatibility with old MCZs. In particular, we need to be > able to consume MCZs with full histories, and have images without this > enhancement still work with the new style MCZs. It might well be worth > asking some Pharo folks what they think, and maybe coordinate a bit > across dialects. The persistent state of the mcz files is unchanged. Only the in-memory state is slimmer. |
|
|
It's not quite bullet-proof yet: log of DNU attached. It fails to find a certain info, which causes all kinds of problems.
Also, something apparently tries to materialize infos in the background. Possibly updating MC browsers, not sure. This leads to very strange and hard to get-rid-of notifiers: (these updating bars used to be very rare, like once per session, recently they pop up multiple times for many operations, but I've never before had 2 on the screen at the same time) - Bert - |
PastedGraphic-2.png (20K) |
|
Ok, I'll look at it today. One thing is that all ancestry SHOULD be
in the same repository -- but I agree, the system needs to handle that as gracefully as possible if it isn't. Can you tell me how to reproduce the issue? Thanks. On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: > It's not quite bullet-proof yet: log of DNU attached. It fails to find a certain info, which causes all kinds of problems. > > Also, something apparently tries to materialize infos in the background. Possibly updating MC browsers, not sure. This leads to very strange and hard to get-rid-of notifiers: > > > > > (these updating bars used to be very rare, like once per session, recently they pop up multiple times for many operations, but I've never before had 2 on the screen at the same time) > > - Bert - > > > > |
|
|
It happens to not find "XML-Parser-Alexandre_Bergel.20". No idea why it's trying to look for that. Not all merged versions are in trunk, by design.
The more I think about it, the less convinced I am is that this space optimization is worth introducing such a fragile machinery. MC is designed to have all ancestry info available at all times - just opening any repository will cause the proxies to materialize again, because the highlighting looks at which version names are in the ancestry of the working copy. I'd rather revert this whole thing, to be honest. If you're trying to build a minimal image for deploying an application you would be better off unloading MC altogether. - Bert - On 2013-08-15, at 18:26, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: > Ok, I'll look at it today. One thing is that all ancestry SHOULD be > in the same repository -- but I agree, the system needs to handle that > as gracefully as possible if it isn't. > > Can you tell me how to reproduce the issue? > > Thanks. > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: >> It's not quite bullet-proof yet: log of DNU attached. It fails to find a certain info, which causes all kinds of problems. >> >> Also, something apparently tries to materialize infos in the background. Possibly updating MC browsers, not sure. This leads to very strange and hard to get-rid-of notifiers: >> >> >> >> >> (these updating bars used to be very rare, like once per session, recently they pop up multiple times for many operations, but I've never before had 2 on the screen at the same time) >> >> - Bert - >> >> >> >> > |
|
|
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: It happens to not find "XML-Parser-Alexandre_Bergel.20". No idea why it's trying to look for that. Not all merged versions are in trunk, by design. The original MC documentation says ALL versions are intended to be contained by repositories. I have no idea what "design" you're talking about.
You uncovered one issue and you're calling it "fragile?" Proxy is a well-documented, proven pattern that has stood the test of time.
machinery. MC is designed to have all ancestry info available at all times - just opening any repository will cause the proxies to materialize again, because the highlighting looks at which version names are in the ancestry of the working copy. It's not just about smaller images. It's about sustainability of the ancestry.
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
You know, you guys are really tough! For many years y'all have been complaining about the size of the image. When I complained to Frank about committing new versions of stuff with one character deleted from a comment, he said, "if our systems can't withstand lots of updates then we need to fix our systems." That's what I've spent my time and energy working toward here. I thought you would be pleased, but you don't want to even give it a chance.. On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: It happens to not find "XML-Parser-Alexandre_Bergel.20". No idea why it's trying to look for that. Not all merged versions are in trunk, by design. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-4
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
so, all versions are in a repository somewhere. Maybe in SqueakSource (now read only?), SmalltalkHub, GitHub, SS3, or even on my local file directory repository. Not all of those are shared - or constantly attached to the image you are working with. The machinery needs to work with missing versions - which Monticello does - it just goes farther back until it can find a common ancestor.
I'm probably missing something, but couldn't the proxy resolve itself with the data contained in the .mcz should it need to? The data is there in the first place, and should be easier to get at than web calls to repositories (or directory scans, for that matter).
-Chris |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-4
On 15.08.2013, at 18:48, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
The idea is that versions are self-contained. When I merge two versions, I only need to share and upload the result. That means that you will not find that other version in your repo. But the merged version has all ancestry data in it (you know that).
I'm not aware of any current use of proxies in Squeak trunk.
But as soon as you use MC it needs the ancestry anyway.
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-4
On 15 August 2013 17:51, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You know, you guys are really tough! For many years y'all have been > complaining about the size of the image. When I complained to Frank about > committing new versions of stuff with one character deleted from a comment, > he said, "if our systems can't withstand lots of updates then we need to fix > our systems." > > That's what I've spent my time and energy working toward here. I thought > you would be pleased, but you don't want to even give it a chance.. If it's any consolation, I've felt like that from time to time, here :) frank |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-4
On 15.08.2013, at 18:51, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
IMHO making the image more modular is not about size in the first place, but about managing complexity. Having clear dependencies between packages also is useful for image shrinking, granted, but much more importantly it makes the system cleaner and simpler to understand.
That was about the way we store MCZs, each of which has a full snapshot of the code. I have not heard complaints about the size of MCVersionInfos in the image.
Well, I didn't complain right away ;) It sounded like a neat idea at first, but then I remembered that one of the things I really like about Monticello is its clarity and simplicity. Everything is very concrete, whereas proxies are very meta by nature.
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-3
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Chris Muller wrote:
> Ok, I'll look at it today. One thing is that all ancestry SHOULD be > in the same repository -- but I agree, the system needs to handle that > as gracefully as possible if it isn't. Is it a requirement from now on that all the ancestry has to be present (in a single repository) if I want to use MC? Or did I misunderstand something? Levente > > Can you tell me how to reproduce the issue? > > Thanks. > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: >> It's not quite bullet-proof yet: log of DNU attached. It fails to find a certain info, which causes all kinds of problems. >> >> Also, something apparently tries to materialize infos in the background. Possibly updating MC browsers, not sure. This leads to very strange and hard to get-rid-of notifiers: >> >> >> >> >> (these updating bars used to be very rare, like once per session, recently they pop up multiple times for many operations, but I've never before had 2 on the screen at the same time) >> >> - Bert - >> >> >> >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
[>> It happens to not find "XML-Parser-Alexandre_Bergel.20". No idea why it's
>> trying to look for that. Not all merged versions are in trunk, by design. > > The original MC documentation says ALL versions are intended to be contained > by repositories. I have no idea what "design" you're talking about. > > The idea is that versions are self-contained. When I merge two versions, I > only need to share and upload the result. That means that you will not find > that other version in your repo. But the merged version has all ancestry > data in it (you know that). Did you notice that I uploaded ALL interim versions of Monticello-cmm.[552-557]? Why would I do that when technically I only needed to upload 557? Because MC functions depend on the ancestry model matching what's in the repositories. Keeping all versions supports incremental development and rollback. Besides that we should just maintain an MC model that is "whole" and operational rather than broken. Are you concerned about disk space? > I'm not aware of any current use of proxies in Squeak trunk. Great then it's high time that Squeak has a working example of this well-known design pattern in the image. >> I'd rather revert this whole thing, to be honest. If you're trying to >> build a minimal image for deploying an application you would be better off >> unloading MC altogether. > > It's not just about smaller images. It's about sustainability of the > ancestry. > > But as soon as you use MC it needs the ancestry anyway. Not all of it. We're up to version 600+ of Morphic, when was the last time version 1 of Morphic was needed? But we continue to carry that around, in and out of the system, forever. It's a gradual decline, unsustainable. Levente and I are interested in addressing this. (From the other note) > Well, I didn't complain right away ;) < 24 hours dude. ;) > It sounded like a neat idea at first, > but then I remembered that one of the things I really like about Monticello > is its clarity and simplicity. Everything is very concrete, whereas proxies > are very meta by nature. We haven't lost clarity or simplicity. That's the nice thing about this solution, it changes _nothing_ about the MC model. It's very transient, all-in-memory. There's no disaster scenario. I've use much more complicated MagmaProxies, millions of them, everyday for years. They work. The issue you experienced was predicted in my "Special Notes". Please don't surrender yet. |
|
|
On 2013-08-15, at 21:24, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: > [>> It happens to not find "XML-Parser-Alexandre_Bergel.20". No idea why it's >>> trying to look for that. Not all merged versions are in trunk, by design. >> >> The original MC documentation says ALL versions are intended to be contained >> by repositories. I have no idea what "design" you're talking about. >> >> The idea is that versions are self-contained. When I merge two versions, I >> only need to share and upload the result. That means that you will not find >> that other version in your repo. But the merged version has all ancestry >> data in it (you know that). > > Did you notice that I uploaded ALL interim versions of > Monticello-cmm.[552-557]? Why would I do that when technically I only > needed to upload 557? We try to have a continuous "trunk" of versions in the trunk repository. We named it that way, even. But we do not store copies of all branches, because MC doesn't need them, and we don't need them. So versions that got merged into trunk do not need to be in trunk themselves, and for sure not their ancestors. > Because MC functions depend on the ancestry model matching what's in > the repositories. Keeping all versions supports incremental > development and rollback. Besides that we should just maintain an MC > model that is "whole" and operational rather than broken. Are you > concerned about disk space? No, I am concerned about putting even more restrictions onto Monticello. We have gradually moved from a system with very few assumptions, over a period of non-enforced conventions, to a rigidly enforced one. Version names are an example of that. And now your adding a requirement to have an internet connection all the time because MC can unpredictably request an ancient version. I do not see that as a good idea. >> I'm not aware of any current use of proxies in Squeak trunk. > > Great then it's high time that Squeak has a working example of this > well-known design pattern in the image. Perhaps you can find a better example. And if not, then maybe it's not as essential as you think. Just because we *can* do something does not mean we *have* to. >>> I'd rather revert this whole thing, to be honest. If you're trying to >>> build a minimal image for deploying an application you would be better off >>> unloading MC altogether. >> >> It's not just about smaller images. It's about sustainability of the >> ancestry. >> >> But as soon as you use MC it needs the ancestry anyway. > > Not all of it. We're up to version 600+ of Morphic, when was the last > time version 1 of Morphic was needed? But we continue to carry that > around, in and out of the system, forever. It does not need to load these old versions, but it often needs to their version names, and sometimes the UUID, and having the commit message is useful too at times. You're not doing anything about that need. You're just hiding it out of sight. That's not a solution. > It's a gradual decline, unsustainable. > Levente and I are interested in addressing this. A noble goal, and I agree we need to work on it, but you're not addressing it. > (From the other note) >> Well, I didn't complain right away ;) > > < 24 hours dude. ;) I'm quick ;) I did test it, and thought about it. >> It sounded like a neat idea at first, >> but then I remembered that one of the things I really like about Monticello >> is its clarity and simplicity. Everything is very concrete, whereas proxies >> are very meta by nature. > > We haven't lost clarity or simplicity. That's the nice thing about > this solution, it changes _nothing_ about the MC model. It's very > transient, all-in-memory. There's no disaster scenario. Wrong. Now just about anything you do can cause a file read or network access because MC is trying to materialize a proxy that shouldn't have been stubbed out in the first place. Before, each working copy could access its full ancestry data. That is a very serious change of behavior, in my book. > I've use much more complicated MagmaProxies, millions of them, > everyday for years. They work. The issue you experienced was > predicted in my "Special Notes". Please don't surrender yet. Because in Magma there is a real need for proxies. In MC, there isn't. - Bert - |
|
|
>> Did you notice that I uploaded ALL interim versions of
>> Monticello-cmm.[552-557]? Why would I do that when technically I only >> needed to upload 557? > > We try to have a continuous "trunk" of versions in the trunk repository. We named it that way, even. But we do not store copies of all branches, because MC doesn't need them, and we don't need them. So versions that got merged into trunk do not need to be in trunk themselves, and for sure not their ancestors. Bottom line -- if you want to find the diffs between two old versions in the ancestry, you'll need them both. For you to assert "for sure not their ancestors" is wrong -- you CAN'T be sure. No one knows what might be needed in the future. >> Because MC functions depend on the ancestry model matching what's in >> the repositories. Keeping all versions supports incremental >> development and rollback. Besides that we should just maintain an MC >> model that is "whole" and operational rather than broken. Are you >> concerned about disk space? > > No, I am concerned about putting even more restrictions onto Monticello. We have gradually moved from a system with very few assumptions, over a period of non-enforced conventions, to a rigidly enforced one. Version names are an example of that. And now your adding a requirement to have an internet connection all the time because MC can unpredictably request an ancient version. I do not see that as a good idea. You know what was restrictive about the version names before? It was that they were dumb Strings being treated as a multi-field object, from 10 different places in the code, all similar but slightly different, and none commented. It caused paralysis because changes could not be made safely. It's why it took weeks for me to dissect and do the surgery necessary to reify that crap. Did you know, Bert, that before I did that work, we were "restricted" to use only FileBasedRepository's. Now we we have a unified API between all repository types. Or, we DID, until recently when you and Eliot slapped that branch-name in it. At least it's no longer hidden like it was before MCVersionName, but MC has no notion of branches anywhere in its domain. Guess what? Projects using your feature are now stuck back on only FileBasedRepositories once again. >>> But as soon as you use MC it needs the ancestry anyway. >> >> Not all of it. We're up to version 600+ of Morphic, when was the last >> time version 1 of Morphic was needed? But we continue to carry that >> around, in and out of the system, forever. > > It does not need to load these old versions, but it often needs to their version names, and sometimes the UUID, and having the commit message is useful too at times. Dodge. Please explain the use-case where Morphic.1 would need to be consumed by a human or the system. > You're not doing anything about that need. You're just hiding it out of sight. That's not a solution. What need? Hiding what? Huh? >> It's a gradual decline, unsustainable. >> Levente and I are interested in addressing this. > > A noble goal, and I agree we need to work on it, but you're not addressing it. You obviously didn't read my note to Levente in this thread which explained the next-step I want to take with this. >> We haven't lost clarity or simplicity. That's the nice thing about >> this solution, it changes _nothing_ about the MC model. It's very >> transient, all-in-memory. There's no disaster scenario. > > Wrong. Now just about anything you do can cause a file read or network access because MC is trying to materialize a proxy that shouldn't have been stubbed out in the first place. Before, each working copy could access its full ancestry data. That is a very serious change of behavior, in my book. Look, I'm glad you at least agree it's a noble _goal_. So please give us a solution, won't you? Please share your wildest imagination about how it would be possible to achieve this goal without needing to be connected to a repository? Levente has an alternate solution that does not employ proxies. I personally like the Proxy solution because it's just a simple "one off" solution that makes no changes to the MC model. But realizing the goal is more important to me than using Proxies. Perhaps, Bert, you would approve of Levente's solution or propose one yourself. Until then, I'll make the purging of ancestry a separate menu item, so you don't have to select it and you can stay happy. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
On 2013-08-15, at 17:39, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: > It's not quite bullet-proof yet: log of DNU attached. It fails to find a certain info, which causes all kinds of problems. > > Also, something apparently tries to materialize infos in the background. Possibly updating MC browsers, not sure. This leads to very strange and hard to get-rid-of notifiers: > > <PastedGraphic-2.png> > > (these updating bars used to be very rare, like once per session, recently they pop up multiple times for many operations, but I've never before had 2 on the screen at the same time) > > - Bert - > > <SqueakDebug.log> I tried to rescue my image that got broken by choosing "flush cached versions". Manually downloaded Monticello-cmm.560.mcz, tried to merge in using a file list. Didn't help, because even merging needs access to the infos. And it's a pain in the neck to debug because just opening a debugger tries to materialize the proxy again which results in an error again. This is what I mean by "fragile" and "unneeded complexity". - Bert - |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |