preserving heritage (was: filtered menu in 3.11)

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Ken Causey <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 20:38 -0600, Chris Muller wrote:
>> > Squeak has been such a great journey, and its own historical path is
>> > somewhat captured in the timestamp / author-stamp information of the
>> > individual methods.
>> >
>> > I think it is worthwhile to revert methods properly; meaning to truly
>> > revert them not just to the prior code, but to the prior accounting
>> > record associated with that.
>> >
>> > With Monticello, it is relatively easy to retrieve the original method
>> > from the prior version.  Proper reversion is one reason for keeping
>> > around all the old versions of code.
>> >
>> > More importantly, however, I think we should take care to revert
>> > methods properly so that the original history and heritage of the
>> > object-model that is the latest and greatest Squeak image, be
>> > preserved as much as possible.
>> >
>> > I do it even with just my own code, even when I'm the same initials,
>> > because it is still worth it to me to know, _when_ was that method
>> > written.  How long has that method been sitting there, unchanged.
>> >
>> > Again, I think it's worth it, and I hope others will consider the
>> > value of adopting this practice as well.
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> >   Chris
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I wonder if there is some reasonable change to the tools that could be
>> made to make this more natural and therefore require less forethought.
>> I share your goal but often forget.
>
> Monticello could be made to ask and/or warn if one should automatically
> revert unchanged methods if the previous version is in the package cache.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

> For reverting to methods prior to the last version:
>
>  - note timestamp of the method to revert
>  - from the Monticello browser,select the package the method is in,
> and pressy History.
>  - Find the version in the list dated just after the date of the method change.
>  - Spawn history on that one.
>  - Browse changes, select the method, revert.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Ken Causey <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 20:38 -0600, Chris Muller wrote:
>>> > Squeak has been such a great journey, and its own historical path is
>>> > somewhat captured in the timestamp / author-stamp information of the
>>> > individual methods.
>>> >
>>> > I think it is worthwhile to revert methods properly; meaning to truly
>>> > revert them not just to the prior code, but to the prior accounting
>>> > record associated with that.
>>> >
>>> > With Monticello, it is relatively easy to retrieve the original method
>>> > from the prior version.  Proper reversion is one reason for keeping
>>> > around all the old versions of code.
>>> >
>>> > More importantly, however, I think we should take care to revert
>>> > methods properly so that the original history and heritage of the
>>> > object-model that is the latest and greatest Squeak image, be
>>> > preserved as much as possible.
>>> >
>>> > I do it even with just my own code, even when I'm the same initials,
>>> > because it is still worth it to me to know, _when_ was that method
>>> > written.  How long has that method been sitting there, unchanged.
>>> >
>>> > Again, I think it's worth it, and I hope others will consider the
>>> > value of adopting this practice as well.
>>> >
>>> > Thank you,
>>> >   Chris
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I wonder if there is some reasonable change to the tools that could be
>>> made to make this more natural and therefore require less forethought.
>>> I share your goal but often forget.
>>
>> Monticello could be made to ask and/or warn if one should automatically
>> revert unchanged methods if the previous version is in the package cache.
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

> 2010/2/5 Chris Muller <[hidden email]>:
>> Ohh, that sounds pretty good.
>>
>> Until then, though, thankfully Monticello at least informs with the
>> comment, "source same but revision changed" in the "Patch Browser" (I
>> assume everyone reviews their changes like me before saving!  :)  ).
>> Those methods can be right-clicked, and then select "revert".  MC will
>> load the prior version with the old accounting info.
>>
>
> Doesn't a change of protocol triggers these  "source same but revision
> changed" ?
> Change of protocol perserve the author/timeStamp meta info.
>
> Nicolas
>
>> For reverting to methods prior to the last version:
>>
>>  - note timestamp of the method to revert
>>  - from the Monticello browser,select the package the method is in,
>> and pressy History.
>>  - Find the version in the list dated just after the date of the method change.
>>  - Spawn history on that one.
>>  - Browse changes, select the method, revert.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Ken Causey <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 20:38 -0600, Chris Muller wrote:
>>>> > Squeak has been such a great journey, and its own historical path is
>>>> > somewhat captured in the timestamp / author-stamp information of the
>>>> > individual methods.
>>>> >
>>>> > I think it is worthwhile to revert methods properly; meaning to truly
>>>> > revert them not just to the prior code, but to the prior accounting
>>>> > record associated with that.
>>>> >
>>>> > With Monticello, it is relatively easy to retrieve the original method
>>>> > from the prior version.  Proper reversion is one reason for keeping
>>>> > around all the old versions of code.
>>>> >
>>>> > More importantly, however, I think we should take care to revert
>>>> > methods properly so that the original history and heritage of the
>>>> > object-model that is the latest and greatest Squeak image, be
>>>> > preserved as much as possible.
>>>> >
>>>> > I do it even with just my own code, even when I'm the same initials,
>>>> > because it is still worth it to me to know, _when_ was that method
>>>> > written.  How long has that method been sitting there, unchanged.
>>>> >
>>>> > Again, I think it's worth it, and I hope others will consider the
>>>> > value of adopting this practice as well.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thank you,
>>>> >   Chris
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if there is some reasonable change to the tools that could be
>>>> made to make this more natural and therefore require less forethought.
>>>> I share your goal but often forget.
>>>
>>> Monticello could be made to ask and/or warn if one should automatically
>>> revert unchanged methods if the previous version is in the package cache.
>>>>
>>>> Ken
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>