[squeak-dev] One-line change to Monticello

(the commit message didn't go through, something about an upstream proxy server)

There's a one line fix to Monticello in the inbox that allows mcm's to
also be listed when you view the contents of a repository.

--
Danie Roux *shuffle* Adore Unix - http://danieroux.com

On 26.08.2009, at 22:55, Danie Roux wrote:

> (the commit message didn't go through, something about an upstream  
> proxy server)
>
> There's a one line fix to Monticello in the inbox that allows mcm's to
> also be listed when you view the contents of a repository.


Err, I can see the update.xx.mcm files fine. What is this "fix"  
supposed to accomplish?

- Bert -

On 26.08.2009, at 23:23, Bert Freudenberg wrote:


Oh. I see. Well, the right fix would be to remove the line altogether.  
Does anybody know why or when it was introduced? This indeed filters  
the names of files shown in a repository. It would filter malformed  
mcz names too. Not a good idea IMHO, and the last time I looked at  
that method, it definitely was unfiltered.

- Bert -

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Bert Freudenberg<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Err, I can see the update.xx.mcm files fine. What is this "fix" supposed to
> accomplish?

Indeed, the update.xx.mcm files are visible in the trunk repo - should
have checked there too.

What is not visible are the mcm's at
http://www.squeaksource.com/MagmaTester, and this accomplishes that.

--
Danie Roux *shuffle* Adore Unix - http://danieroux.com

On 26.08.2009, at 23:41, Danie Roux wrote:



I guess what happened is that "(each at: 3)" was nil sometimes  
(String>>asInteger does this). But rather than filtering out files  
without a version number, I'd just set the number to 0 in that case.

We *could* filter to only show files matching "*.mc?" but that would  
be different than what the line did.

Can you submit a revised package?

- Bert -