I do not like it either... but if there are more than one repository group (like before 1 per package) we have to make sure the repositories are unique per URL, otherwise you end up with different repositories which look the same but for instance do not have the same credentials, which was the problem we had back then.
I remember that whenever we added a SLICE the inbox repository got duplicated
causing qutie a bit of confusion, since you had to re-enter your password twice
or more...
On 2013-11-07, at 17:09, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So we were discussing this here in the sprint. People say this is a feature.
> To be this is a bug.
>
> The change is in
>
> repositoryGroup
> ^ workingCopy
> ifNil: [MCRepositoryGroup default]
> ifNotNil: [workingCopy repositoryGroup]
>
> which right now it is as
>
> repositoryGroup
> ^ MCRepositoryGroup default
>
> So we will probably put a setting for the moment because we cannot agree.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.duca...@inria.fr>
> wrote:
> Ben
>
> this is good to share repositories :)
> I got burned so many times while integrating changes back in Squeak 3.9 that
> this is the first things I did for the scriptLoader.
> Now I do not see why when we select a package we should see the ones that are
> not associated with the package.
>
> Stef
>
> On Nov 3, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Benjamin <benjamin.vanryseghem.ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The thing is you use to have one instance of the same MCRepository per
>> package.
>> By example, the Pharo repository was in fact #{packageNumber} instances.
>>
>> So the change you make on one (by example, string your password) was not
>> reflected to the others.
>> And it seems that during the fix of this, this issue was introduced.
>>
>> (I think the easy solution taken was to have the same repositories for
>> everything).
>> It’s indeed kind of a paint o deal with, but a smaller one that it use to be
>> :)
>>
>> Definitely it’s a bug, not a feature :)
>> We should wait tip Guillermo’s answer since he was the one fixing this
>> painful behaviour (2 sprints ago)
>
> We can try to do something during the sprint thursday.
>
>
>> Ben
>>
>> On 03 Nov 2013, at 22:44, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I do not understand what the password has to do with showing only the
>>> relevant repositories for a selected package. Could you explain?
>>>
>>> Doru
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 3, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Benjamin
>>> <benjamin.vanryseghem.ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The idea was that repositories were shared among packages.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, you have to type your password a billion times
>>>>
>>>> Ben
>>>>
>>>> On 03 Nov 2013, at 21:49, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, I wanted to raise this issue as well. The Monticello browser is a
>>>>> rather terrible interface, but at least the scoping of repositories was
>>>>> useful. Is the change intentional, or is it a bug?
>>>>>
>>>>> Doru
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Alexandre Bergel
>>>>> <alexandre.ber...@me.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> Before, when one selects a package (left list), then only the set of
>>>>> relevant repositories are displayed (right list). This is now not the
>>>>> case anymore. I think I have seen somewhere a MC package is not
>>>>> associated to a repository anymore. What is the idea behind this? I find
>>>>> this rather convenient...
>>>>>
>>>>> Alexandre
>>>>> --
>>>>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
>>>>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
>>>>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>>>>
>>>>> "Every thing has its own flow"
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>>
>>> "What is more important: To be happy, or to make happy?"
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mariano
> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
