Hi Esteban,
forgive me if what I say causes conflict. I do not wish to cause
conflict; quite the opposite. But I must say something on this issue as it
is very important to me.
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Esteban Lorenzano
wrote:
>
> On 13 May 2017, at 16:17,
Could a pragmatic fix be simply... if the first-generated MC version
number is greater than 1,
then re-generate the MC version number based off the latest version
number in the MC repository.
But the bigger question is for...
v1(MC) --> v2(git) --> v3(git) --> v4(git) --> v5(MC)
what
Le 13/05/2017 à 16:17, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
On 13 May 2017, at 15:51, Thierry Goubier wrote:
Le 13/05/2017 à 15:43, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
On 13 May 2017, at 13:16, Yuriy Tymchuk
wrote:
I’m not a bit expert, but if you don’t
> On 13 May 2017, at 16:17, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
>
>>
>> On 13 May 2017, at 15:51, Thierry Goubier wrote:
>>
>> Le 13/05/2017 à 15:43, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
>>>
>>>
On 13 May 2017, at 13:16, Yuriy Tymchuk
> On 13 May 2017, at 15:51, Thierry Goubier wrote:
>
> Le 13/05/2017 à 15:43, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
>>
>>
>>> On 13 May 2017, at 13:16, Yuriy Tymchuk
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’m not a bit expert, but if you don’t use “metadataless” format
> On 13 May 2017, at 15:37, Oleks wrote:
>
> So basically, this is not a bug, but the way Iceberg and Monticello are
> built?
> And there is no point in reporting it because it can't be fixed?
It doesn’t has to be fixed because is not a bug
>
> Oleks
>
>
>
> --
>
Le 13/05/2017 à 15:43, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
On 13 May 2017, at 13:16, Yuriy Tymchuk
wrote:
I’m not a bit expert, but if you don’t use “metadataless” format
everything works fine with monticello. I.e. each git commit
contains all the mc history.
yes, but with
Ok… I’m pretty sure Iceberg did not delete my MC metadata. Maybe I used it too
long ago for my project
> On 13 May 2017, at 15:43, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 13 May 2017, at 13:16, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
>>
>> I’m not a bit expert, but if
So basically, this is not a bug, but the way Iceberg and Monticello are
built?
And there is no point in reporting it because it can't be fixed?
Oleks
--
View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/Git-breaks-Monticello-s-version-numbers-tp4946939p4946997.html
Sent from the Pharo
> On 13 May 2017, at 13:16, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
>
> I’m not a bit expert, but if you don’t use “metadataless” format everything
> works fine with monticello. I.e. each git commit contains all the mc history.
yes, but with iceberg we did another choice: we force
I’m not a bit expert, but if you don’t use “metadataless” format everything
works fine with monticello. I.e. each git commit contains all the mc history.
Uko
> On 13 May 2017, at 09:28, Thierry Goubier wrote:
>
> Le 13/05/2017 à 08:58, Stephane Ducasse a écrit :
>>
Le 13/05/2017 à 08:58, Stephane Ducasse a écrit :
My gut feeling is that it will be better not to mix git and MC.
It is easy to make MC compatible with Git.
It wasn't that hard in the past, but needed a community effort (MC being
a core part of the system). Now, with the infrastructure
> On 12 May 2017, at 23:09, Oleksandr Zaytsev wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> Two days ago I was trying to send the slice with my fix to PolyMath using
> Monticello. But the version number got set to 1494471195. Today I realized
> that all the packages to which I commit are
My gut feeling is that it will be better not to mix git and MC.
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Oleksandr Zaytsev
wrote:
> Hello
>
> Two days ago I was trying to send the slice with my fix to PolyMath using
> Monticello. But the version number got set to 1494471195.
Hello
Two days ago I was trying to send the slice with my fix to PolyMath using
Monticello. But the version number got set to 1494471195. Today I realized
that all the packages to which I commit are numbered like that.
Cyril Ferlicot explained to me that this happens when I mix git and
15 matches
Mail list logo