[Pharo-project] Issue 3660 in pharo: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support
Status: New Owner: ---- New issue 3660 by jfitz...@gmail.com: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660 After recent discussion with Dale Henrichs (see http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/seaside-dev/2011-February/004557... ) I realize that my fix in Issue 281 was not correct. Actually, I'm not even sure whether the bug report was valid to begin with. The correct MC branch naming convention should be: <hyphenated-package-name>.<dotted.branch.tag>-<initials>.<count>.mcz and it appears the tools are currently largely supporting this. The *incorrect* convention pushed in by Issue 281 was: <hyphenated-package-name>-<initials>.<dotted.branch.tag>.<count>.mcz I don't know if the incorrect convention has become widely adopted, but it would reduce future confusion if we can back out the Issue 281 "fix".
Comment #1 on issue 3660 by da...@teleport.com: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660 GoferVersionReference>>parseName: is one of the other areas affected by Issue 281. So backing out the Issue 281 "fix" should be coordinated with a change to Gofer.
Comment #2 on issue 3660 by stephane...@gmail.com: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660 yes. Let us know how we can proceed in a coordinated fashion. After that we should really fix mc tool to get the right format. Then do we retrofit this fix to 1.2? 1.1? RIght now I have no idea about the impact.
Comment #3 on issue 3660 by da...@teleport.com: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660 I'm just guessing, but I think that the majority of folks and focus has been on standard, straightforward packages, with little branching using the incorrect convention, otherwise we would have heard more complaints. Since the correct convention is compatible with the incorrect convention, it's not critical that the changes be tightly coordinated, but for consistency's sake I would think that it is worth pushing the fixes out to 1.1 and 1.2 whenever a bugfix release is planned.
Comment #4 on issue 3660 by renggli: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660 The slice in the inbox fixes the Gofer part and associated tests of the problem: Name: SLICE-Issue-3660-Incorrect-Branch-Naming-In-Gofer-LukasRenggli.1 Author: lr Time: 6 February 2011, 6:08:20 pm UUID: dc9ed225-e2a7-4597-b5af-c9f1dd5fa103 Ancestors: Dependencies: Gofer-Tests-lr.126, Gofer-Core-lr.130 - align branch naming conventions with rest of the world Package { "." Branch } "-" Author "." Version
Updates: Status: Fixed Labels: 1.3 1.2 1.1 Comment #5 on issue 3660 by stephane...@gmail.com: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660 Thanks both of you !!!!! In 13040 Todo: in 1.2 for sure, may be in 1.1 (but I do not know).
Comment #6 on issue 3660 by stephane...@gmail.com: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660 in 1.2 12333
Updates: Status: Closed Comment #7 on issue 3660 by stephane...@gmail.com: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660 (No comment was entered for this change.)
Comment #8 on issue 3660 by siguc...@gmail.com: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660 Thank you thank you thank you ! :)
participants (1)
-
pharo＠googlecode.com