Changes file - how important?

> Hi,
>
> How important is the changes file, really? I don't mean in terms of
> recovering from crashes, because I use my changes file all the time.
>
> I mean, if a changes file is not present, does everything still work?
> I ask, because SmalltalkImage >> #logChange: specifically protects
> against a missing changes file (in the sense that it does nothing if
> (Sources at: 2) == nil). However, if you start up an image with no
> changes file, there's a big fat modal dialog warning about the missing
> file, but clicking through results in what looks - at first glance at
> least - like a normally functioning image.
>
> If a changes file is _desirable_ but not _necessary_, could we remove
> the dialog (or do something different for -headless images, like
> dumping a warning to stderr)? Or simply start a new changes file if
> one's missing?
>
> The concrete problem I'm trying to work around is with the CI test
> script. Running the test means modifying the changes file and Jenkins
> really does not like that. If the changes file were not necessary I
> could simply not keep it under version control.
>
> Sometimes, I don't _care_ about recovering from a crash.

> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 01:00:32PM +0100, Frank Shearar wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> How important is the changes file, really? I don't mean in terms of
>> recovering from crashes, because I use my changes file all the time.
>>
>> I mean, if a changes file is not present, does everything still work?
>> I ask, because SmalltalkImage >> #logChange: specifically protects
>> against a missing changes file (in the sense that it does nothing if
>> (Sources at: 2) == nil). However, if you start up an image with no
>> changes file, there's a big fat modal dialog warning about the missing
>> file, but clicking through results in what looks - at first glance at
>> least - like a normally functioning image.
>>
>> If a changes file is _desirable_ but not _necessary_, could we remove
>> the dialog (or do something different for -headless images, like
>> dumping a warning to stderr)? Or simply start a new changes file if
>> one's missing?
>>
>> The concrete problem I'm trying to work around is with the CI test
>> script. Running the test means modifying the changes file and Jenkins
>> really does not like that. If the changes file were not necessary I
>> could simply not keep it under version control.
>>
>> Sometimes, I don't _care_ about recovering from a crash.
>
> You can symlink the changes file to /dev/null and all of the changes
> will go into the bit bucket:
>
>   $ rm myImage.changes
>   $ ln -s /dev/null myImage.changes
>   $ squeak myImage

> HTH,
> Sean
>
> [1]
> https://ci.lille.inria.fr/pharo/job/Scripts-download/ws/pharo-shell-scripts/fetchPharo20.sh/*view*/
> [2]
> https://ci.lille.inria.fr/pharo/job/Scripts-download/ws/download.sh/*view*/
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Changes-file-how-important-tp4642416p4642455.html
> Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

> On 1 August 2012 14:14, Sean P. DeNigris <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Frank Shearar-3 wrote
>>>
>>> If the changes file were not necessary I
>>> could simply not keep it under version control.
>>>
>>
>> Pharo uses wget to download things like the image/changes/sources [1] [2].
>
> Sure. But doing that right now means you use git to get a shell to
> download an artifact, which seems... a bit busy. Right now we can
> check out the CI environment in its entirety. I guess the current
> squeak-ci also helps with bandwidth usage, if that's an issue: you'll
> only download a new image once in a while. I don't know if that's a
> significant argument either way :)
>
> frank

>
> On 01.08.2012, at 06:24, Frank Shearar wrote:
>
>> On 1 August 2012 14:14, Sean P. DeNigris <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Frank Shearar-3 wrote
>>>>
>>>> If the changes file were not necessary I
>>>> could simply not keep it under version control.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pharo uses wget to download things like the image/changes/sources [1] [2].
>>
>> Sure. But doing that right now means you use git to get a shell to
>> download an artifact, which seems... a bit busy. Right now we can
>> check out the CI environment in its entirety. I guess the current
>> squeak-ci also helps with bandwidth usage, if that's an issue: you'll
>> only download a new image once in a while. I don't know if that's a
>> significant argument either way :)
>>
>> frank
>
>
> IMHO the tests should be as close to real-world usage as possible. You don't need a changes file for running, but for developing you do. I think putting a hard git reset into the build script is the right way to deal with this. Alternatively it could copy the image+changes to a temp location and run from there.

> Hi,
>
> How important is the changes file, really? I don't mean in terms of
> recovering from crashes, because I use my changes file all the time.
>
> I mean, if a changes file is not present, does everything still work?
> I ask, because SmalltalkImage >> #logChange: specifically protects
> against a missing changes file (in the sense that it does nothing if
> (Sources at: 2) == nil). However, if you start up an image with no
> changes file, there's a big fat modal dialog warning about the missing
> file, but clicking through results in what looks - at first glance at
> least - like a normally functioning image.
>
> If a changes file is _desirable_ but not _necessary_, could we remove
> the dialog (or do something different for -headless images, like
> dumping a warning to stderr)? Or simply start a new changes file if
> one's missing?
>
> The concrete problem I'm trying to work around is with the CI test
> script. Running the test means modifying the changes file and Jenkins
> really does not like that. If the changes file were not necessary I
> could simply not keep it under version control.