As I reviewed the Slice <Changes> related to Case 4993, I notice the relevant part was only a single method, but also included were several more unrelated modifications with zero-sum refactorings. eg, from... position: aPoint super position: aPoint. self viewBox ifNotNil: [self viewBox: (aPoint extent: self viewBox extent)]. to... position: aPoint super position: aPoint. self viewBox ifNotNil: [:viewBox | self viewBox: (aPoint extent: viewBox extent)]. which itself is cool, but my first thought was that these shouldn't have been included in the Case 4993 Slice, but in a separate Slice for a different Case that dealt just with those refactorings. But thinking further in general the image I use for testing could have moved on from the image used to generate that Slice. So maybe its not not such a problem anyhow? Also, if the zero-sum refactoring modifications were put in their own separate Slice, then probably the specific modifications related to the Case would build upon that, so ultimately you end up with the same situation. So in short my question is, how much do you typically separate out Case-specific modifications from incidental zero-sum refactoring made along the way. cheers -ben --------Original Message----------- btc@openinworld.com wrote:
kilon wrote:
This is my first pharo bug fix so be gentle :D
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/4993/Typing-cmd-L-cancel-all-typing-and-we...
<https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/4993/Typing-cmd-L-cancel-all-typing-and-we...>
As I explain in the link and in my commit log , I have added a confirm dialog so the user in case he accidentally pressed CMD+L will click no and his changes will not be lost. I have verified the bug fix with the latest pharo build.
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/bug-4993-Typing-cmd-L-cancel-all-typing-and-we-can-t-u...
Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
It looks fine. Simple enough even for me to understand ;). So I've changed the status to 'Resolved - fix to include.' Actually my first, so just checking this is the correct next step in the workflow ?