Re: [Pharo-project] [1.4] Doing a #condenseChanges in #14158
On Sep 20, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote:
On 20.09.2011 14:49, Marcus Denker wrote:
Hi,
The .changes have gotten really large... (32MB...)
So I will do a condense in the next update.
NOTE: this will take quite some time to finish, so maybe wait for a pre-built image or Jenkins...
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
Noooooooooo, please please don't... Method history is so much more useful than 20 extra MB's on my HD :S
Ok, so lets postpone... but we really need to think hard how this is sustainable. I have the impression that the current source management system needs some real improvement soon. Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
+1 Ben On Sep 20, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Sep 20, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote:
On 20.09.2011 14:49, Marcus Denker wrote:
Hi,
The .changes have gotten really large... (32MB...)
So I will do a condense in the next update.
NOTE: this will take quite some time to finish, so maybe wait for a pre-built image or Jenkins...
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
Noooooooooo, please please don't... Method history is so much more useful than 20 extra MB's on my HD :S
Ok, so lets postpone... but we really need to think hard how this is sustainable.
I have the impression that the current source management system needs some real improvement soon.
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
On 20.09.2011 15:05, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Sep 20, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote:
On 20.09.2011 14:49, Marcus Denker wrote:
Hi,
The .changes have gotten really large... (32MB...)
So I will do a condense in the next update.
NOTE: this will take quite some time to finish, so maybe wait for a pre-built image or Jenkins...
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
Noooooooooo, please please don't... Method history is so much more useful than 20 extra MB's on my HD :S
Ok, so lets postpone... but we really need to think hard how this is sustainable.
I have the impression that the current source management system needs some real improvement soon.
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
Can only speak from personal experience... When encountering a bug in some recently changed method, your only chance is manually diff each package from around the changeset timestamp, and you'll hopefully be able to link it to the issue that prompted the change... Now imagine this when there are nothing but most recent versions in the .cs, and some syntactic changes were made after that which actually introduced the bug? Yup, (imho) condensing changes make linking method changes back to the issues which prompted them practically impossible. (and before that, it's still a PITA) Performant method history browsing from Monticello repositories is never going to be a reality. I'd gladly give 100 ⬠(or a beer, whichever is preferred) to someone who can prove me wrong :) Cheers, Henry
Performant method history browsing from Monticello repositories is never going to be a reality. I'd gladly give 100 ⬠(or a beer, whichever is preferred) to someone who can prove me wrong :)
It is reality since 3+ years in Monticello 2. Lukas -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch
On 20.09.2011 15:26, Lukas Renggli wrote:
Performant method history browsing from Monticello repositories is never going to be a reality. I'd gladly give 100 ⬠(or a beer, whichever is preferred) to someone who can prove me wrong :) It is reality since 3+ years in Monticello 2.
Lukas
Monticello 2 != Monticello, sadly Cheers, Henry
On 20 Sep 2011, at 15:20, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote:
Performant method history browsing from Monticello repositories is never going to be a reality. I'd gladly give 100 ⬠(or a beer, whichever is preferred) to someone who can prove me wrong :)
Where you live beers are quite expensive ;-) ! Both points are valid: .changes files that are too big are not very good, having method history of methods is important. Maybe someone should try to find out how many identical entries there are in the current ? It could well be that there are a lot of those due to the way integrations are done ? Sven
participants (5)
-
Benjamin -
Henrik Sperre Johansen -
Lukas Renggli -
Marcus Denker -
Sven Van Caekenberghe