Issue 3660 in pharo: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support

Status: New
Owner: ----

New issue 3660 by [hidden email]: Revert incorrect Monticello branch  
naming support
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660

After recent discussion with Dale Henrichs (see  
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/seaside-dev/2011-February/004557.html 
) I realize that my fix in Issue 281 was not correct.

Actually, I'm not even sure whether the bug report was valid to begin with.

The correct MC branch naming convention should be:
<hyphenated-package-name>.<dotted.branch.tag>-<initials>.<count>.mcz
and it appears the tools are currently largely supporting this.

The *incorrect* convention pushed in by Issue 281 was:
<hyphenated-package-name>-<initials>.<dotted.branch.tag>.<count>.mcz

I don't know if the incorrect convention has become widely adopted, but it  
would reduce future confusion if we can back out the Issue 281 "fix".

Comment #1 on issue 3660 by [hidden email]: Revert incorrect Monticello  
branch naming support
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660

GoferVersionReference>>parseName: is one of the other areas affected by  
Issue 281. So backing out the Issue 281 "fix" should be coordinated with a  
change to Gofer.

Comment #2 on issue 3660 by [hidden email]: Revert incorrect  
Monticello branch naming support
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660

yes. Let us know how we can proceed in a coordinated fashion.
After that we should really fix mc tool to get the right format.
Then do we retrofit this fix to 1.2? 1.1?
RIght now I have no idea about the impact.

Comment #3 on issue 3660 by [hidden email]: Revert incorrect Monticello  
branch naming support
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660

I'm just guessing, but I think that the majority of folks and focus has  
been on standard, straightforward packages, with little branching using the  
incorrect convention, otherwise we would have heard more complaints.

Since the correct convention is compatible with the incorrect convention,  
it's not critical that the changes be tightly coordinated, but for  
consistency's sake I would think that it is worth pushing the fixes out to  
1.1 and 1.2 whenever a bugfix release is planned.

Comment #4 on issue 3660 by renggli: Revert incorrect Monticello branch  
naming support
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660

The slice in the inbox fixes the Gofer part and associated tests of the  
problem:

Name: SLICE-Issue-3660-Incorrect-Branch-Naming-In-Gofer-LukasRenggli.1
Author: lr
Time: 6 February 2011, 6:08:20 pm
UUID: dc9ed225-e2a7-4597-b5af-c9f1dd5fa103
Ancestors:
Dependencies: Gofer-Tests-lr.126, Gofer-Core-lr.130

- align branch naming conventions with rest of the world
   Package { "." Branch } "-" Author "." Version

Updates:
        Status: Fixed
        Labels: 1.3 1.2 1.1

Comment #5 on issue 3660 by [hidden email]: Revert incorrect  
Monticello branch naming support
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660

Thanks both of you !!!!!
In 13040

Todo: in 1.2 for sure, may be in 1.1 (but I do not know).

Comment #6 on issue 3660 by [hidden email]: Revert incorrect  
Monticello branch naming support
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660

in 1.2
12333

Updates:
        Status: Closed

Comment #7 on issue 3660 by [hidden email]: Revert incorrect  
Monticello branch naming support
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660

(No comment was entered for this change.)

Comment #8 on issue 3660 by [hidden email]: Revert incorrect Monticello  
branch naming support
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660

Thank you thank you thank you ! :)