On Mar 6, 2012, at 7:30 PM, Max Leske wrote:
> This may be a stupid question… (As far as I understand, condensing the
> changes is not the same)
> Why don't you increment the version number of the sources file to 1.1 and use
> a fresh changes file?
>
The sources file does not contain the sources and the changes just the changes.
(even though one could think so taking
the names into account.)
The sources file containes the sources of ages ago (1.0), the .changes is "on
top of that". This means that the .sources
file contains a lot of code from classes and methods that have been removed
(like the changes),
as well as old versions.
The .sources/.changes mechanism merges three responsabilties:
1) be a log of all edited code in case of a crash
2) store the current source of the methods (when you ask a method for code, it
reads either from the .sources
(method not changed since 1.0) or from the .changes (method was changed).
3) provide a history for all code
And all that in 2 big files that one can only append to because? No idea,
actually...
I personally think that it is a mistake today to merge all these into one such
basic mechanism. Especialy if
you look at how complex the code is in the image... it's actually amazing.
When you do a #condenseSources (which is sadly broken right now), then it
generates a .sources
file with just the code in the current image. It would be interesting to see
how large that is.
Marcus
--
Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
