Le 29/06/2016 15:30, Nicolas Passerini a écrit :
Thank you Thierry!
I have more questions inline.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Thierry Goubier
<thierry.goub...@gmail.com <mailto:thierry.goub...@gmail.com>> wrote:
All the Monticello GUI : track down version numbers to order stuff
in the lists views everywhere.
So, if we built a new GUI which does not rely on those version numbers
maybe we could get rid of that problem, what do you think?
Yes, of course. But this still means we have to rebuild the GUI... which
probably requires it anyway :)
The Metacello / Gofer stuff (Configurations, Baselines) also use
version numbers.
Yes, I understand that they use version numbers, but do they require
that version numbers are correlative?
They need those version numbers to indicate a total ordering of
versions, to be able to:
- determine what is the HEAD of the repository,
- determine if a currently loaded version in the image should be
replaced by a higher version numbered from the configuration or baseline.
Now we could know what should be the API on there.
One of the difficulty of switching will be the cohabitation of
number-based systems (smalltalkhub) and SHA-based systems,
especially when you do things like copying a version from a git
repository to a smalltalkhub repository.
I think that currently it is not possible to copy a number-based package
version from smalltalkhub to a metadata-less git repository using git
file tree. I mean, you can but the new version will not have the same
version number, right?
In that way, you're right.
The other way works. The other way is more common, as far as I can see.
Metacello can only distribute from github and bitbucket; git
repositories can happen in many other places, and gitfiletree handles
most of them.
That's why I suggested to change the ordering relation to a partial
order based on the property A is an ancestor of B -> B is before A.
I've lost you there. I agree that it is true that A is an ancestor of B
-> B is before A, but the most common problem goes the other way
arround, i.e. you want to know if A is ancestor of B and the implication
then is not true: B is before A 'does not imply' B is ancestor of A. So
I missed your point here.
Well, this is why I talked about a partial order. If two versions
belonging to two different branches are compared, then you can't say
anything about the order of the two versions.
Thierry
