On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Sebastian Nozzi <sebnozzi@gmail.com>wrote:
2012/11/12 Fernando Olivero <fernando.olivero@usi.ch>:
Sebastian, thanks for sharing your code and thoughts.
Hey, you're welcome.
Maybe what Mariano was implying is that you already have the data for the backup in the changes, and having yet another mechanism for that adds complexity to the system.
As I said, I think I should not have posted on "pharo project".
No, it was perfect to publish here, so that we can discuss :)
I didn't mean this as a contribution to the project per se, but to the community (as a user, to the users). I am not suggesting for a second that it should be part of the system. It's something I coded for me, and wanted to share.
And of course, everyone is free *not* to use it ;-)
But it is the opposite, I was asking to do the other way around: analyze whether we should include it in Pharo :)
I think is a good idea, but too focused on the categories you choose up front..and not on those actual changes you perform on the system.
I would like to know how to ask the system what classes did I change. But the only things I found took minutes to execute (asking every class for its authors, or something like that). Very brute-fore. I'm sure there is a better approach I am not aware of.
Which is why the recovering from the changes file is better.
I don't see it as "which one is better". I am honoured that this was interpreted as a serious theoretical "inclusion" as a Pharo feature, with shortcomings or not :-)
:) Again, thanks for sharing this. I just wanted to know whether it makes sense to include it in Pharo. -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com