I did not mean storing all versions.
I mean storing all authors of previous veesions.
> 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 ���all the versions���
is so slow (you need to download them, unpack them���) 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
>