On Jan 21, 2011, at 8:50 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 21 January 2011 20:41, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote:
>> So what is the convention because I would like to enforce it.
>> There is no need to have more mess.
>>
>
> i prefer to have
>
> {PackageName}[-{subname}]*-(.*)\.{number}\.mcz
>
> where in (.*) could be anything and we don't really should care.
>
> And i'm not agree about numbering.
> Number is userful way to tell that my version is more recent than
> yours _without_ checking the date of file or even worse,
> checking the date(s) inside a file.
but you cannot simply since the numbering is local to your repository.
I could publish a more recent package with a small number and push it in your
repository.
>
>> Stef
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2011, at 6:48 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/21/2011 08:11 AM, Miguel Cobá wrote:
>>>> El vie, 21-01-2011 a las 11:05 +0100, Igor Stasenko escribió:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay, i found the solution. Use Installer !
>>>>>
>>>>> Installer monticello http: 'http://www.squeaksource.com';
>>>>> project: 'VMMaker';
>>>>> install: 'CMakeVMMaker'
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> works well for me and loads correct *latest* version.
>>>>
>>>> That isn't a solution and open again a gratuitous discussion about gofer
>>>> vs installer.
>>>>
>>>> The point is, in a distributed SCM system, like Monticello is, there
>>>> isn't a latest version. At least not by the traditional (suversion for
>>>> example) way of knowing the monotone numeric integer version number. As
>>>> Lukas said, the only way to know something is latest is to compare
>>>> timestamps, but not version numbers or commits id. They aren't not
>>>> intended to be ordered respect to time.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems to me that that isn't quite the issue ... for Metacello I had to
>>> change the sort algorithm that Gofer used to more closely match the
>>> algorithm used by the Monticello GUI when it sorts packages ... to minimize
>>> the surprise for developers who are used to the Monticello GUI sorting
>>> order... I also had to change the branch naming scheme that was used by
>>> Gofer, because it caused problems when package names inadvertently looked
>>> like a branch to Gofer when it wasn't...Since there has never been an
>>> enforced naming convention in Monticello, there are a whole lot of
>>> incompatible naming schemes being used...
>>>
>>> BTW, I made these changes so that they only applied to Metacello's use of
>>> Gofer ...
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
