Thierry,
Okay ... it is "working" now ... I was also misled by the fact that you
are continuing to fabricate Monticello version numbers which presumably
cannot be relied upon in any way.
Tugrik-Help-DaleHenrichs.11 will show up in each branch that includes
the commit for "Tugrik-Help-DaleHenrichs.10", but the SHA and contents
would be different for each one of the "Tugrik-Help-DaleHenrichs.11" ,
is that right?
Perhaps using the short SHA in place of the "version number" would be
safer and provide useful information in the version number slot?
If I support "Metadata" : "false" in GemStone, I do not intend to
fabricate a "realistic looking Monticello version number" ... but I will
look into using the short SHA (when in a git repo) and perhaps fall back
to cypress.1 for non-git repos...
Anyway, I will now be able to move forward with my Metacello Cypress
experiments and also try to understand how Metacello loads are affected
by metadtaless, since you _are_ fabricating Monticello version numbers,
my previous assumptions are not correct ...
Thanks again!
Dale
On 6/28/16 4:11 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote:
On 6/28/16 2:16 PM, Thierry Goubier wrote:
Dale,
I'm sure it is possible. Wait, wait! If you have in your .filetree
"Metadata" : "false" then this is fine and it has switched to the
metadata-less mode.
To see the changes on disk, you need to save a new version of your
packages, that should be all.
I just tried and that works.
1- remove the GitFileTree repository from your image
2- write the property "Metadata" : "false" in the .filetree on disk
3- re-add the GitFileTree repository (local)
4- modify then save one of the repository packages
5- look on disk: no more monticello.meta/version!
Note that I had no packages in the image linked to that repository at
1-, because I'm not sure the simple removal would have really removed
the repository singleton object.
Well I've found the culprit: MCFileTreeWriter>>addString:at:encodedTo:
ensures that monticello.meta directory exists...
Of course as I reread your comment "no more monticello.meta/version" I
will have to say that I've only been looking at whether or not the
monticello.meta directory existed or not ... I equate "no monticello
meta data" as no monticello.meta directory and you interpret it as "no
monticallo version file" ... well I can live with that ... I swore
that I saw version files being updated in some of my experiments ...
but now that I know that I should only look at the
monticello.meta/version file, I will try yet again ...
Thanks for you patience and help ...
Dale
