Smalltalk › Squeak › Squeak - Dev

Project Isolation: Is This Still a True Statement?

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

3 messages Options

Casey Ransberger-2

Project Isolation: Is This Still a True Statement?

I thought we ripped out the project isolation stuff.

From the lass comment for ChangeSet:

"For isolated projects (see Project class comment), the changeSet binding is semi-permanent. Every project exists in an isolation layer defined by its closest enclosing parent (or itself) that is isolated. If a project is not isolated, then changes reported to its designated changeSet must also be reported to the permanent changeSet for that layer, designated in the isolated project. This ensures that that outer project will be able to revert all changes upon exit."

Is this statement still true (I don't think so?) Would folks be receptive to my removing it from the comment?

While some charitable soul has added a note to the Project class comment that isolation is not used anymore, I think having the large amount of cruft in the comment is at best distracting, and at worst confusing. I'm thinking I'd like to remove that stuff; older images which still use the mechanism will still have the comment, and since we keep all the releases around forever, we aren't at risk of losing the information for folks who want to run an older Squeak.

What say the people of Squeak?

--
Casey Ransberger

Andreas.Raab

Re: Project Isolation: Is This Still a True Statement?

Go for it. Wrong comments are embarrassing at best, badly misleading at
worst. Any improvement in documentation is a very welcome effort.

Cheers,
- Andreas

On 7/27/2010 7:29 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:

> I thought we ripped out the project isolation stuff.
>
>
> From the lass comment for ChangeSet:
>
> "For isolated projects (see Project class comment), the changeSet
> binding is semi-permanent. Every project exists in an isolation layer
> defined by its closest enclosing parent (or itself) that is isolated.
> If a project is not isolated, then changes reported to its designated
> changeSet must also be reported to the permanent changeSet for that
> layer, designated in the isolated project. This ensures that that outer
> project will be able to revert all changes upon exit."
>
> Is this statement still true (I don't think so?) Would folks be
> receptive to my removing it from the comment?
>
> While some charitable soul has added a note to the Project class comment
> that isolation is not used anymore, I think having the large amount of
> cruft in the comment is at best distracting, and at worst confusing. I'm
> thinking I'd like to remove that stuff; older images which still use the
> mechanism will still have the comment, and since we keep all the
> releases around forever, we aren't at risk of losing the information for
> folks who want to run an older Squeak.
>
>
> What say the people of Squeak?
>
> --
> Casey Ransberger
>
>
>
>

Casey Ransberger-2

Re: Project Isolation: Is This Still a True Statement?

In the Inbox.

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:

Go for it. Wrong comments are embarrassing at best, badly misleading at worst. Any improvement in documentation is a very welcome effort.

Cheers,
- Andreas

On 7/27/2010 7:29 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:

I thought we ripped out the project isolation stuff.

From the lass comment for ChangeSet:

"For isolated projects (see Project class comment), the changeSet
binding is semi-permanent. Every project exists in an isolation layer
defined by its closest enclosing parent (or itself) that is isolated.
If a project is not isolated, then changes reported to its designated
changeSet must also be reported to the permanent changeSet for that
layer, designated in the isolated project. This ensures that that outer
project will be able to revert all changes upon exit."

Is this statement still true (I don't think so?) Would folks be
receptive to my removing it from the comment?

While some charitable soul has added a note to the Project class comment
that isolation is not used anymore, I think having the large amount of
cruft in the comment is at best distracting, and at worst confusing. I'm
thinking I'd like to remove that stuff; older images which still use the
mechanism will still have the comment, and since we keep all the
releases around forever, we aren't at risk of losing the information for
folks who want to run an older Squeak.

What say the people of Squeak?

--
Casey Ransberger

--
Casey Ransberger