May be some problems with MC history

hi all

yesterday I decided to have a look at MC changes in squeak to see if  
this has an impact for the closure last fixes merge.
So I did with the latest scriptLoader in the pharo repository

ScriptLoader new addExtraRepositories

then I select each version of the monticello package in squeak trunk  
starting from 314 up to 321 and
used the history and asked to get the delat with the previous version.
This way I could get all the changes one by one.

Now I ended up having
        - methods refering to instance variables that were not included  
(methodDefinitiosn for example with 321)
        - when I run the tests I realized that most of the Mock classes where  
gone.

Except for 321 I do not see a change that could affect the MC merging.

Does any (lukas) use the history feature to merge?
I will retry to do the changes one by one and run the tests in between  
to see what went wrong
but I 'm not sure that what is going wrong is the changes (I have the  
impression that may be MC history is not capturing
exactly everything but I can be wrong).

Stef



_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> Does any (lukas) use the history feature to merge?

Sometimes, if I would like to merge changes made in another branch.
Imagine the following situation:

    a.1 ---- wc (working copy)
        \---- b.1 --- b.2

Now I want to include the changes that happened between b.2 and b.3,
but not those that were done between a.1 and b.1. I use the history
and to calculate a diff between b.1 and b.2 and selectively load the
changes. If the changes are separate from what happened between a.1
and wc and a.1 and b.1 this should be relatively simple. Unfortunately
Monticello cannot figure out such dependencies, because it keeps the
ancestry on a package level only. In fact, with Monticello 2 an
operation like this should be smooth and automatic like a normal
merge.

> I will retry to do the changes one by one and run the tests in between
> to see what went wrong
> but I 'm not sure that what is going wrong is the changes (I have the
> impression that may be MC history is not capturing
> exactly everything but I can be wrong).

MC1 does not capture the ancestry of the individual methods, that's
why you have to extremely careful and check if you do not override
changes that were made between a.1 and wc and if you do not introduce
changes made between a.1 and b.1. I know this can be very tricky,
especially when there are many changes between a.1 and wc and a.1 and
b.1. MC2 promises rescue here.

Lukas

--
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

thanks lukas

in general you did not get any problems?
Beause I was careful and the changes seemed simple except the last one
The result is that apparently I lost classes that were not in the  
changes!
and instance variables.

I'm now comparing with the squeak trunk image to see if this is an MC  
problem
because this is the first time I got that strange behavior.

Stef

On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:09 AM, Lukas Renggli wrote:


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

a couple of bugs when understanding the history based merge (ugly)

        - adding the new method to a cs does not work if you did not install  
the code before (ok)
        - class definition are not added (yeah) in the changeset. Really cool!

This functionality by passes the changeset and this is not a good idea.

Stef


On Sep 11, 2009, at 11:56 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> a couple of bugs when understanding the history based merge (ugly)

It is not a merge operation, as I said in my mail. You are merely
applying the changes representing a delta between two versions
manually. That's all, no magic involved.

>        - adding the new method to a cs does not work if you did not install
> the code before (ok)
>        - class definition are not added (yeah) in the changeset. Really cool!

I don't understand what this has to do with change-sets?

Class definitions are part of the patch that is calculated by
Monticello. My guess is that the class didn't change for the delta you
calculated. To illustrate, in the example above the changes between
b.1 and b.2 don't show a class change that happened between a.1 and
b.1, even if the delta depends on it.

I use what I described all the time, it is maybe a bit tricky, but
works really well.

Cheers,
Lukas

--
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

>> a couple of bugs when understanding the history based merge (ugly)
>
> It is not a merge operation, as I said in my mail. You are merely
> applying the changes representing a delta between two versions
> manually. That's all, no magic involved.

Yes I know, I did not mean merging. Sorry for the bad working,

>>        - adding the new method to a cs does not work if you did not  
>> install
>> the code before (ok)
>>        - class definition are not added (yeah) in the changeset.  
>> Really cool!
>
> I don't understand what this has to do with change-sets?

there is a menu item: 'add to changeset' and I wanted to generate a cs  
for each of the commit
because I wanted to be able to reload the work in another image to test.
And not load and fuck up and restart kind of scenario.

> Class definitions are part of the patch that is calculated by
> Monticello.

probably but when you use add to changesets they don't.

> My guess is that the class didn't change for the delta you
> calculated.

Yes this is what I discovered see below. Now I really understand the  
limits of the functionality.

> To illustrate, in the example above the changes between
> b.1 and b.2 don't show a class change that happened between a.1 and
> b.1, even if the delta depends on it.
>
> I use what I described all the time, it is maybe a bit tricky, but
> works really well.

I wanted to know if I can trust this functionality. So I did the  
following experiment and
I learned a lot and now I deeply understanding what you  mean :)

I took latest pharo
       
        ScriptLoader new addExtraRepositories

then you open the trunk repository and browse the monticello package

I checked the changes made in ar 321, did not see an instance variable  
called methodAdditions nor the initialize method modification.
  The previous version of initialize was made in 2007. I compare the  
history between md.308 july 2006 and rkrk.320 there I saw that the  
initialize methods was added. I added the 3.10 repository and I found  
that the method initialize was added in rej.309 in 310.

So now I understand and it would be nice to have a functionality to  
now when a change occurred. So now I can use
the history and yes we should really be cautious.
I wrote these emails so that other people can learn from it.

So thanks lukas.

Stef
PS: L'idee de l'experience ne remplace pas l'experience

So I'm happy I know more now :)




_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

>> I don't understand what this has to do with change-sets?
>
> there is a menu item: 'add to changeset' and I wanted to generate a cs
> for each of the commit
> because I wanted to be able to reload the work in another image to test.

Sorry, never used (or even encountered) that menu item before.

> So thanks lukas.

No problem ;-)

Lukas

--
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:48:45PM +0200, Lukas Renggli wrote:
Stef,

I don't know if this is helpful or not, but FYI Edgar De Cleene has
produced the list of change sets corresponding to the MC update stream
for Squeak trunk. See this thread on squeak-dev:

  http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-September/139360.html

Dave


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Thanks dave.
So far I found my way (but I will have a look) and I'm reading  
carefully the code to see
the implication for the loading of the closure fixes.

Stef

On Sep 12, 2009, at 3:45 PM, David T. Lewis wrote:


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project