Le 30 nov. 2015 5:24 AM, "EuanM" <euanmee@gmail.com> a écrit :
Is there anything stopping us adding one more dictionary to each Monticello commit?
A key of commit ids and values of author name?
This dictionary is already there in the version metadata... The file that generates conflicts in git. Thierry
On 24 November 2015 at 06:55, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
+1
And so far Monticello is much better that having delta because you can still get a complete project without having to reconstruct the complete snapshot from deltas. I could not imagine the amount of code we would have lost else. Veronica in her PhD built a crawler that reconstructs all the deltas based on MC files. Now this is work. Stef
Le 23/11/15 17:02, Nicolas Cellier a écrit :
It's not Monticello per se. It's the backend (the server) which is too naive. The .mcz must be considered as a unit of exchange between the server (the repository) and the client (the working copy). And please note that in Monticello, it's not the only way to exchange data, it can also be a .mcd (a diff).
Nothing forces the server to store the .mcz as is. That's just a naive implementation. Chris Muller demonstrated how to use a database (magma) as backend...
2015-11-23 12:12 GMT+01:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>:
On 22 Nov 2015, at 20:12, EuanM <euanmee@gmail.com> wrote:
Is there any reason against amending Monticello to store and save all author's names?
It does. *If* you have all the versions⦠but doing anything with âall
the
versionsâ is so slow (you need to download them, unpack themâ¦) that we do not even have a tool to show the history of a method. (getting the oldest should be simpler, if you have complete history+this .mcz is there).
Monticello is meant to be a system to save the complete history of a project (if you keep all the MCZ available), but the idea to save every tiny revision as a complete snapshot, zip compresses, makes it near impossible to do anything with the history in practice.
With today disks, a practical SCM would allow anyone to have the *complete* history on the local disk. Monticello does now allow that in any practical way.
Presumably, we'd also want a tool that could extract amnders' names all the way back to the first commit of a package?
How many on-line Monticello repositories are in common use?
(I know of SqueakSource.com, Smalltalkhub.com and SqueakSource3)
Are there active administrators for each of those repositories that would allow us to update the repositories to use the updated Monticello?
On 22 November 2015 at 15:42, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On 20 Nov 2015, at 14:35, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-11-20 14:21 GMT+01:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>:
epicea data is not stored forever. It is seasion based and the
shipped
image is clean.
But current source of this info is changes file (maybe sources). And I remember you planned to store current sources in image. And such information can be there too. Maybe I miss something?
The original author is not really that much of information. And storing it for every method in the image would take space.
As I said: the whole idea of using a source revision control system is that you have the *complete* history available, but not wasting RAM.
Marcus