a couple of bugs when understanding the history based merge (ugly)
It is not a merge operation, as I said in my mail. You are merely applying the changes representing a delta between two versions manually. That's all, no magic involved.
Yes I know, I did not mean merging. Sorry for the bad working,
- adding the new method to a cs does not work if you did not install the code before (ok) - class definition are not added (yeah) in the changeset. Really cool!
I don't understand what this has to do with change-sets?
there is a menu item: 'add to changeset' and I wanted to generate a cs for each of the commit because I wanted to be able to reload the work in another image to test. And not load and fuck up and restart kind of scenario.
Class definitions are part of the patch that is calculated by Monticello.
probably but when you use add to changesets they don't.
My guess is that the class didn't change for the delta you calculated.
Yes this is what I discovered see below. Now I really understand the limits of the functionality.
To illustrate, in the example above the changes between b.1 and b.2 don't show a class change that happened between a.1 and b.1, even if the delta depends on it.
I use what I described all the time, it is maybe a bit tricky, but works really well.
I wanted to know if I can trust this functionality. So I did the following experiment and I learned a lot and now I deeply understanding what you mean :) I took latest pharo ScriptLoader new addExtraRepositories then you open the trunk repository and browse the monticello package I checked the changes made in ar 321, did not see an instance variable called methodAdditions nor the initialize method modification. The previous version of initialize was made in 2007. I compare the history between md.308 july 2006 and rkrk.320 there I saw that the initialize methods was added. I added the 3.10 repository and I found that the method initialize was added in rej.309 in 310. So now I understand and it would be nice to have a functionality to now when a change occurred. So now I can use the history and yes we should really be cautious. I wrote these emails so that other people can learn from it. So thanks lukas. Stef PS: L'idee de l'experience ne remplace pas l'experience So I'm happy I know more now :)