I've started checking the current trunk against all the changes applied
in the update stream since 7159. One of the methods in 7160 is !PartsBin methodsFor: '*BabySRE-connectors-initialization' stamp: 'edc 12/4/2007 16:01'! listDirection: aListDirection quadList: quadList buttonClass: buttonClass and it is missing in trunk. There are no senders. Was its removal intentional? Ken signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment |
oops I mean update 7161
http://ftp.squeak.org/updates/7161ObjectFlagFix-M6793-edc.cs On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:43 -0500, Ken Causey wrote: > I've started checking the current trunk against all the changes applied > in the update stream since 7159. One of the methods in 7160 is > > !PartsBin methodsFor: '*BabySRE-connectors-initialization' stamp: 'edc > 12/4/2007 16:01'! > listDirection: aListDirection quadList: quadList buttonClass: buttonClass > > and it is missing in trunk. There are no senders. Was its removal intentional? > > Ken signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment |
Jecel has correctly pointed out to me that this method is an extension
method, hence it would not show up in the MorphicExtras package. That explains it. I'm inclined not to worry about it and assume BabySRE is the only user and has it under control. Ken On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:53 -0500, Ken Causey wrote: > oops I mean update 7161 > > http://ftp.squeak.org/updates/7161ObjectFlagFix-M6793-edc.cs > > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:43 -0500, Ken Causey wrote: > > I've started checking the current trunk against all the changes applied > > in the update stream since 7159. One of the methods in 7160 is > > > > !PartsBin methodsFor: '*BabySRE-connectors-initialization' stamp: 'edc > > 12/4/2007 16:01'! > > listDirection: aListDirection quadList: quadList buttonClass: buttonClass > > > > and it is missing in trunk. There are no senders. Was its removal intentional? > > > > Ken signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment |
In reply to this post by Ken Causey-3
On 03.07.2009, at 22:53, Ken Causey wrote: > oops I mean update 7161 > > http://ftp.squeak.org/updates/7161ObjectFlagFix-M6793-edc.cs > > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:43 -0500, Ken Causey wrote: >> I've started checking the current trunk against all the changes >> applied >> in the update stream since 7159. One of the methods in 7160 is >> >> !PartsBin methodsFor: '*BabySRE-connectors-initialization' stamp: >> 'edc >> 12/4/2007 16:01'! >> listDirection: aListDirection quadList: quadList buttonClass: >> buttonClass >> >> and it is missing in trunk. There are no senders. Was its removal >> intentional? >> >> Ken > It's in the BabySRE package in trunk - but obviously it does not belong there but is miscategorized. - Bert - |
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 23:00 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 03.07.2009, at 22:53, Ken Causey wrote: > > > oops I mean update 7161 > > > > http://ftp.squeak.org/updates/7161ObjectFlagFix-M6793-edc.cs > > > > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:43 -0500, Ken Causey wrote: > >> I've started checking the current trunk against all the changes > >> applied > >> in the update stream since 7159. One of the methods in 7160 is > >> > >> !PartsBin methodsFor: '*BabySRE-connectors-initialization' stamp: > >> 'edc > >> 12/4/2007 16:01'! > >> listDirection: aListDirection quadList: quadList buttonClass: > >> buttonClass > >> > >> and it is missing in trunk. There are no senders. Was its removal > >> intentional? > >> > >> Ken > > > > It's in the BabySRE package in trunk - but obviously it does not > belong there but is miscategorized. > > > - Bert - the correction action is to delete the package. But then is it referenced elsewhere like some mcm or the like? Obviously one of my goals with all these questions is to understand policy. Ken signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment |
In reply to this post by Ken Causey-3
On 7/3/09 5:43 PM, "Ken Causey" <[hidden email]> wrote: > !PartsBin methodsFor: '*BabySRE-connectors-initialization' stamp: 'edc > 12/4/2007 16:01'! > listDirection: aListDirection quadList: quadList buttonClass: buttonClass > > and it is missing in trunk. There are no senders. Was its removal > intentional? > > Ken Seems me trying to load Baby-SRE and I don't have a clue how go into the basic image. Sure could be removed without problem Edbgar |
In reply to this post by Ken Causey-3
On 7/3/09 5:53 PM, "Ken Causey" <[hidden email]> wrote: > http://ftp.squeak.org/updates/7161ObjectFlagFix-M6793-edc.cs Ok I see now why. Comes from FunSqueak (which have Connectors as pre-requisite for Baby SRE) Was about shared Flaps not showing as we see in previous version. The Doit could be done different but show how Monticello "as we know" fails. But ProcustesEnd or another Monticello version with Preamble and Postcript (I think Impara and Keith have his own) could manage this kind of case. Still digging on old CD for really hard cases to solve with Monticello. Edgar |
In reply to this post by Ken Causey-3
On 03.07.2009, at 23:12, Ken Causey wrote: > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 23:00 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >> On 03.07.2009, at 22:53, Ken Causey wrote: >> >>> oops I mean update 7161 >>> >>> http://ftp.squeak.org/updates/7161ObjectFlagFix-M6793-edc.cs >>> >>> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:43 -0500, Ken Causey wrote: >>>> I've started checking the current trunk against all the changes >>>> applied >>>> in the update stream since 7159. One of the methods in 7160 is >>>> >>>> !PartsBin methodsFor: '*BabySRE-connectors-initialization' stamp: >>>> 'edc >>>> 12/4/2007 16:01'! >>>> listDirection: aListDirection quadList: quadList buttonClass: >>>> buttonClass >>>> >>>> and it is missing in trunk. There are no senders. Was its removal >>>> intentional? >>>> >>>> Ken >>> >> >> It's in the BabySRE package in trunk - but obviously it does not >> belong there but is miscategorized. >> >> >> - Bert - > > Ah, another good catch. This is clearly useless as a package. I > assume > the correction action is to delete the package. But then is it > referenced elsewhere like some mcm or the like? Obviously one of my > goals with all these questions is to understand policy. It was not loaded by the mcm (that's why it is not underlined and sorted to the bottom if you look at the repo). I assume Andreas took 3.10.2 and simply committed any package in it to trunk - including faulty ones like this. The question is if this is a new method that simply could be removed, or if it existed before and got moved out of its rightful package into BabySRE. I believe the latter, since the method existed before (timestamp 'nk 9/1/2004'). - Bert - |
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 23:27 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 03.07.2009, at 23:12, Ken Causey wrote: > > > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 23:00 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > >> On 03.07.2009, at 22:53, Ken Causey wrote: > >> > >>> oops I mean update 7161 > >>> > >>> http://ftp.squeak.org/updates/7161ObjectFlagFix-M6793-edc.cs > >>> > >>> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:43 -0500, Ken Causey wrote: > >>>> I've started checking the current trunk against all the changes > >>>> applied > >>>> in the update stream since 7159. One of the methods in 7160 is > >>>> > >>>> !PartsBin methodsFor: '*BabySRE-connectors-initialization' stamp: > >>>> 'edc > >>>> 12/4/2007 16:01'! > >>>> listDirection: aListDirection quadList: quadList buttonClass: > >>>> buttonClass > >>>> > >>>> and it is missing in trunk. There are no senders. Was its removal > >>>> intentional? > >>>> > >>>> Ken > >>> > >> > >> It's in the BabySRE package in trunk - but obviously it does not > >> belong there but is miscategorized. > >> > >> > >> - Bert - > > > > Ah, another good catch. This is clearly useless as a package. I > > assume > > the correction action is to delete the package. But then is it > > referenced elsewhere like some mcm or the like? Obviously one of my > > goals with all these questions is to understand policy. > > It was not loaded by the mcm (that's why it is not underlined and > sorted to the bottom if you look at the repo). use some documentation, or some balloon messages or something. > I assume Andreas took 3.10.2 and simply committed any package in it to > trunk - including faulty ones like this. > > The question is if this is a new method that simply could be removed, > or if it existed before and got moved out of its rightful package into > BabySRE. I believe the latter, since the method existed before > (timestamp 'nk 9/1/2004'). > > - Bert - Yes. It doesn't appear that there are any senders of this message in the image any longer. Are you concerned that some external package relies on its existence? With that in mind I have brought up the subject of a deprecation policy in a separate email. Ken signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment |
On 03.07.2009, at 23:44, Ken Causey wrote: > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 23:27 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >> On 03.07.2009, at 23:12, Ken Causey wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 23:00 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >>>> On 03.07.2009, at 22:53, Ken Causey wrote: >>>> >>>>> oops I mean update 7161 >>>>> >>>>> http://ftp.squeak.org/updates/7161ObjectFlagFix-M6793-edc.cs >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:43 -0500, Ken Causey wrote: >>>>>> I've started checking the current trunk against all the changes >>>>>> applied >>>>>> in the update stream since 7159. One of the methods in 7160 is >>>>>> >>>>>> !PartsBin methodsFor: '*BabySRE-connectors-initialization' stamp: >>>>>> 'edc >>>>>> 12/4/2007 16:01'! >>>>>> listDirection: aListDirection quadList: quadList buttonClass: >>>>>> buttonClass >>>>>> >>>>>> and it is missing in trunk. There are no senders. Was its >>>>>> removal >>>>>> intentional? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's in the BabySRE package in trunk - but obviously it does not >>>> belong there but is miscategorized. >>>> >>>> >>>> - Bert - >>> >>> Ah, another good catch. This is clearly useless as a package. I >>> assume >>> the correction action is to delete the package. But then is it >>> referenced elsewhere like some mcm or the like? Obviously one of my >>> goals with all these questions is to understand policy. >> >> It was not loaded by the mcm (that's why it is not underlined and >> sorted to the bottom if you look at the repo). > > OK, frankly I've forgotten what underlining means here. MC could > still > use some documentation, or some balloon messages or something. > >> I assume Andreas took 3.10.2 and simply committed any package in it >> to >> trunk - including faulty ones like this. >> >> The question is if this is a new method that simply could be removed, >> or if it existed before and got moved out of its rightful package >> into >> BabySRE. I believe the latter, since the method existed before >> (timestamp 'nk 9/1/2004'). >> >> - Bert - > > Yes. It doesn't appear that there are any senders of this message in > the image any longer. Are you concerned that some external package > relies on its existence? No, I was simply sharing my findings for someone else to make sense of it :) - Bert - |
In reply to this post by Ken Causey-3
It is not used in my version of SRE, but 'edc' might remember why the method was created/modified. Cheers --Trygve On 2009.07.03 22:43, Ken Causey wrote: I've started checking the current trunk against all the changes applied in the update stream since 7159. One of the methods in 7160 is !PartsBin methodsFor: '*BabySRE-connectors-initialization' stamp: 'edc 12/4/2007 16:01'! listDirection: aListDirection quadList: quadList buttonClass: buttonClass and it is missing in trunk. There are no senders. Was its removal intentional? Ken --
Trygve
Reenskaug mailto: [hidden email] Morgedalsvn. 5A http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver N-0378
Oslo Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27 Norway |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |